12 Feb
2010
12 Feb
'10
11:50 p.m.
Hi all.
Was just listening to Iron Maiden's 'Piece of Mind' on cd today.
Sounds like absolute crap.
I really liked the cassette as a kid......
Anyway, this got me thinking about a conversation I read regarding the
process of analog-to-digital conversion on the first computers running
'capable' software.........
I've noticed that I do indeed have some aversion to the cd-version of
records I otherwise liked on another format (i.e. vinyl or cassette.)
So why are there cds that I think actually *do* sound good?
How has this process changed?
Thanks.
13 Feb
13 Feb
1:44 a.m.
I've noticed that I do indeed have some aversion
to the cd-version of
records I otherwise liked on another format (i.e. vinyl or cassette.)
So why are there cds that I think actually do sound good?
How has this process changed?
The most common reason is that because vinyl records don't have a flat
response, vinyl has a preempahsis applied to the HF. Sometimes the
preemphasis was applied during cutting, sometimes it was applied to
the tape master before cutting. When early CDs were pressed, they
were often pressed from the vinyl masters and if the preemphasis was
on the master, boom, harsh gritty super-over-bright CD.
Monty
3:35 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Your description is right on.
I wonder why no one would've seen something like this coming though?
Was it just a bunch of suits saying, "Yeah, let's sell some cds!" while the
original mastering guy prepared to cringe come "Digital Release Date"? (1
day later?)
I've
noticed that I do indeed have some aversion to the cd-version of
records I otherwise liked on another format (i.e. vinyl or cassette.)
So why are there cds that I think actually do sound good?
How has this process changed?
The most common reason is that because vinyl records don't have a flat
response, vinyl has a preempahsis applied to the HF. Sometimes the
preemphasis was applied during cutting, sometimes it was applied to
the tape master before cutting. When early CDs were pressed, they
were often pressed from the vinyl masters and if the preemphasis was
on the master, boom, harsh gritty super-over-bright CD.
Monty
1:39 p.m.
On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Aaron L. wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Monty Montgomery
<xiphmont(a)gmail.com> wrote:
'Piece of Mind' on CD still sounds good to me -- sweet guitars, crisp
drums, very simple and uncluttered mix. It's not like the over-
distorted, over-processed, and over-compressed crap that too often
makes it to CD these days. (n.b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Loudness_war)
I want my dynamic range back!
-Sean
I've noticed that I do indeed have some
aversion to the cd-
version of
records I otherwise liked on another format (i.e.
vinyl or
cassette.)
So why are there cds that I think actually do sound good?
How has this process changed?
The most common reason is that because vinyl records don't have a flat
response, vinyl has a preempahsis applied to the HF. Sometimes the
preemphasis was applied during cutting, sometimes it was applied to
the tape master before cutting. When early CDs were pressed, they
were often pressed from the vinyl masters and if the preemphasis was
on the master, boom, harsh gritty super-over-bright CD.
Monty
Your description is right on. 
5:07 p.m.
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Sean Bolton wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Aaron L. wrote:
I was hoping someone was going to mention that:
It seems that with CD's, you're cursed one way or another nomatter what
era they come from. In the 80's CD's, you have the gritty metallic
sound that comes from inappropriate EQ that was mentioned, or sometimes
from bad AD conversion. (They used to do everything in 16-bit a lot
then, end-to-end, no 24-bit for more processing headroom like now.)
But now we have great AD converters, and we work in 24-bit (sometimes
even 32-bit in our DAW's), and 96kHz sample rates. Now the problem is
the mastering engineers are being forced by the PHB's at their labels to
compress every bit of attack out of the whole album. What's even more
irritating is that a lot of albums that were released on CD before are
having this done and then being reissued as "remastered" versions, which
leads even people who know about these problems to be tempted into
buying the new versions, thinking that surely this time it's an improved
release that takes advantage of our better mastering processes, right?
Often the older CD's actually sound better, because at least they
weren't ruined by the Loudness War. And often the only way to know is
to actually buy both CD releases and listen to them yourself to see
which version (if any) they didn't butcher the mastering on.
This, I think, is the real reason vinyl has such an undying good
reputation with people who care about music. It's not that vinyl is
actually a superior format. It isn't. Actually, as a format, it's kind
of sad. It has less dynamic range, poorer stereo channel separation,
poorer frequency response, and to top it all off, it wears out from just
using it in a phonograph player, which is supposed to be what it's meant
for.
But when you buy a vinyl record, and it's brand new, never played, and
you put it on the turntable...it doesn't matter what decade it's from:
It's not a crap shoot. It doesn't depend on XYZ political or technical
BS that might have been happening in the mastering world at the time of
its release. It will sound good, because the processes and traditions
of mastering a vinyl record from multitrack tape are older than my
grandpa, and he's dead. Studios *know* how to make a vinyl record.
People not familiar with recording often credit vinyl itself with the
good sound, which their ears are not lying to them about -- it sounds
good! They say vinyl was better. Really, CD has never had a fair
chance to prove itself. From the time it initially came out in the
80's, it's always had one kind of stupidity or another in the recording
and mastering process making it seem inferior. There have even been
some real albums that have come out to prove it -- everyone has some
CD's that sound really good.
But it's the inconsistency of it though. With a CD it's a crap shoot.
With vinyl, it's a sure thing. Almost every single time, you put it on
the turntable, and if the record isn't worn out, the ninety years of
industry know-how and tradition show themselves -- the studios know how
to make a vinyl record. With CD's, for each album you put it, it
becomes a question of "which kind of BS did they ruin this one with"?
Is it the bad-EQ metallic gritty kind of BS? Or did they just compress
it to death? Maybe they used poor converters and let some aliasing
noise through? How did they ruin my album this time?
The fact that occasionally they get it right isn't enough to save CD's
reputation. Vinyl has an undeserved reputation as a better format in
truth because it's a more consistent format. You get good results all
the time, not fantastic results once in a while as with CD.
--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ Physical Sciences Div. + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ James Franck Institute + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
The most common reason is that because vinyl
records don't have a flat
response, vinyl has a preempahsis applied to the HF. Sometimes the
preemphasis was applied during cutting, sometimes it was applied to
the tape master before cutting. When early CDs were pressed, they
were often pressed from the vinyl masters and if the preemphasis was
on the master, boom, harsh gritty super-over-bright CD.
Monty
Your description is right on.
'Piece of Mind' on CD still sounds good to me -- sweet guitars, crisp drums,
very simple and uncluttered mix. It's not like the over-distorted,
over-processed, and over-compressed crap that too often makes it to CD these
days. (n.b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war)
I want my dynamic range back! 
6:10 p.m.
On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 15:07 -0600, Brent Busby wrote:
I was hoping someone was going to mention that:
It seems that with CD's, you're cursed one way or another nomatter what
era they come from. In the 80's CD's, you have the gritty metallic
sound that comes from inappropriate EQ that was mentioned, or sometimes
from bad AD conversion. (They used to do everything in 16-bit a lot
then, end-to-end, no 24-bit for more processing headroom like now.)
But now we have great AD converters, and we work in 24-bit (sometimes
even 32-bit in our DAW's), and 96kHz sample rates. Now the problem is
the mastering engineers are being forced by the PHB's at their labels to
compress every bit of attack out of the whole album. What's even more
irritating is that a lot of albums that were released on CD before are
having this done and then being reissued as "remastered" versions, which
leads even people who know about these problems to be tempted into
buying the new versions, thinking that surely this time it's an improved
release that takes advantage of our better mastering processes, right?
Often the older CD's actually sound better, because at least they
weren't ruined by the Loudness War. And often the only way to know is
to actually buy both CD releases and listen to them yourself to see
which version (if any) they didn't butcher the mastering on.
This, I think, is the real reason vinyl has such an undying good
reputation with people who care about music. It's not that vinyl is
actually a superior format. It isn't. Actually, as a format, it's kind
of sad. It has less dynamic range, poorer stereo channel separation,
poorer frequency response, and to top it all off, it wears out from just
using it in a phonograph player, which is supposed to be what it's meant
for.
But when you buy a vinyl record, and it's brand new, never played, and
you put it on the turntable...it doesn't matter what decade it's from:
It's not a crap shoot. It doesn't depend on XYZ political or technical
BS that might have been happening in the mastering world at the time of
its release. It will sound good, because the processes and traditions
of mastering a vinyl record from multitrack tape are older than my
grandpa, and he's dead. Studios *know* how to make a vinyl record.
People not familiar with recording often credit vinyl itself with the
good sound, which their ears are not lying to them about -- it sounds
good! They say vinyl was better. Really, CD has never had a fair
chance to prove itself. From the time it initially came out in the
80's, it's always had one kind of stupidity or another in the recording
and mastering process making it seem inferior. There have even been
some real albums that have come out to prove it -- everyone has some
CD's that sound really good.
But it's the inconsistency of it though. With a CD it's a crap shoot.
With vinyl, it's a sure thing. Almost every single time, you put it on
the turntable, and if the record isn't worn out, the ninety years of
industry know-how and tradition show themselves -- the studios know how
to make a vinyl record. With CD's, for each album you put it, it
becomes a question of "which kind of BS did they ruin this one with"?
Is it the bad-EQ metallic gritty kind of BS? Or did they just compress
it to death? Maybe they used poor converters and let some aliasing
noise through? How did they ruin my album this time?
The fact that occasionally they get it right isn't enough to save CD's
reputation. Vinyl has an undeserved reputation as a better format in
truth because it's a more consistent format. You get good results all
the time, not fantastic results once in a while as with CD.
Well, the good news is that after Metallica's last CD release, the
question of over-compressing CD's jumped right to the forefront. Mix
magazine seems to have an article about it every few months, and many
prominent mastering engineers are speaking out about why it shouldn't be
done, and why they don't do it.
The great thing about vinyl, and I say this having not put a record on
a record player, in 15 years, is that it has limitations, and one of
them is that you can't push the medium to far in the area of volume and
compression.
Vinyl is cool, and I intend to do some vinyl releases on my record
label, but CD's are more convenient (I never liked having to flip a
record), and as long as we don't abuse the format with the amazingly
powerful digital tools at our disposal, CD's are good enough.
Rich...
6:14 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 03:07:21PM -0600, Brent Busby wrote:
It seems that with CD's, you're cursed one way
or another nomatter what
era they come from. In the 80's CD's, you have the gritty metallic
sound that comes from inappropriate EQ that was mentioned,
If that were the real problem then applying the inverse
EQ would solve it (and you'd gain some S/N ratio as well).
Try it and you'll find it doesn't work that way.
or sometimes from bad AD conversion.
That was surely a problem in those days, in
particular at lower levels.
(They used to do everything in 16-bit a lot
then, end-to-end, no 24-bit for more processing
headroom like now.)
Which actually is no problem in the hands of someone who
knows what he's doing. It just allows less amateurism.
And a typical listener's available dynamic range is a
fraction of what 16-bit can provide.
'Management' fucking up the sound by prescribing some
mandatory processing is nothing new for the CD era, it
existed all through the LP times as well.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
6:37 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:10 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 03:07:21PM -0600, Brent Busby
wrote:
The RIAA preemphasis is not a biorthogonal filter. There will always
be at a minimum some phase/group delay as the 'perfect' inverse filter
is unstable. You can only approximate it. Another example of an
analog horror we no longer need to put up with in the digital era :-)
A digital EQ alone isn't even close, as digital EQ is nearly always
phase-linear (acausal). It's a completely different style of filter.
Also, the preemphasis is only part of it; mastering engineers of the
day mixed and mastered for the medium, so they did a bunch of things
that only make sense for vinyl.
Monty
It seems that with CD's, you're cursed
one way or another nomatter what
era they come from. In the 80's CD's, you have the gritty metallic
sound that comes from inappropriate EQ that was mentioned,
If that were the real problem then applying the inverse
EQ would solve it (and you'd gain some S/N ratio as well).
Try it and you'll find it doesn't work that way.
7:04 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 05:37:50PM -0500, Monty Montgomery wrote:
The RIAA preemphasis is not a biorthogonal filter.
There will always
be at a minimum some phase/group delay as the 'perfect' inverse filter
is unstable. You can only approximate it. Another example of an
analog horror we no longer need to put up with in the digital era :-)
The RIAA filter applied (normally) in the cutter is
(in Bode-plot form)
+6dB/oct up to 50 Hz
flat up to 500 Hz
+6dB/oct up to 2122 Hz
flat above that
It is the combination of 3 simple first order filters.
The first can't be inverted completely, as it would
lead to infinit gain at DC. It can be inverted with
any precision you care for within the audio range.
But that one is not the problem here.
The two others can be inverted exactly.
A digital EQ alone isn't even close, as digital EQ
is nearly always
phase-linear (acausal). It's a completely different style of filter.
Sorry but that is nonsense. The pole/zero at 500 and 2122 Hz can
be inverted by about 2 lines of C code, and the phase response
will match the analog one. As long as you don't approach half
the sample rate the 'simple' digital filters are the same as the
corresponding analog ones. And the highest pole/zero frequency
is this case well below that limit.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
7:28 p.m.
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:00:23 +0100
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 05:37:50PM -0500, Monty
Montgomery wrote:
Does anyone know where they got that figure of 2122Hz from? It's always
puzzled me. Is there some arcane mathematical significance, or was it
the work of an engineer with an hangover?
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
The RIAA preemphasis is not a biorthogonal
filter. There will always
be at a minimum some phase/group delay as the 'perfect' inverse filter
is unstable. You can only approximate it. Another example of an
analog horror we no longer need to put up with in the digital era :-)
The RIAA filter applied (normally) in the cutter is
(in Bode-plot form)
+6dB/oct up to 50 Hz
flat up to 500 Hz
+6dB/oct up to 2122 Hz
flat above that
7:39 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:28:33PM +0000, Folderol wrote:
Does anyone know where they got that figure of 2122Hz
from? It's always
puzzled me. Is there some arcane mathematical significance, or was it
the work of an engineer with an hangover?
It corresponds to a time constant (RC product)
of 75 microseconds. Now try to find standard
components to make that :-)
The other two are 'round' figures when expressed
as frequency. Corresponding RC values are 318 and
3180 usecs...
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
8:15 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
I didn't say that a digital filter couldn't invert it (at least as
well as it can be inverted). I said that the typical digital EQ, the
kind you're going to find in any general purpose EQ plugin, is going
to be an acausal linear-phase filter.
Cheers,
Monty
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 05:37:50PM -0500, Monty
Montgomery wrote:
Ah, I am perhaps used to seeing... dirtier implementations. Yes, it's
intended to just be an EQ. Do you have links to the specified
forward/inverse linear filters? I may not be thinking of a proper
implementation then.
The RIAA preemphasis is not a biorthogonal
filter. There will always
be at a minimum some phase/group delay as the 'perfect' inverse filter
is unstable. You can only approximate it. Another example of an
analog horror we no longer need to put up with in the digital era :-)
The RIAA filter applied (normally) in the cutter is
(in Bode-plot form)
+6dB/oct up to 50 Hz
flat up to 500 Hz
+6dB/oct up to 2122 Hz
flat above that
It is the combination of 3 simple first order filters.
The first can't be inverted completely, as it would
lead to infinit gain at DC. It can be inverted with
any precision you care for within the audio range.
But that one is not the problem here.
The two others can be inverted exactly. A digital EQ
alone isn't even close, as digital EQ is nearly always
phase-linear (acausal). It's a completely different style of filter.
Sorry but that is nonsense. The pole/zero at 500 and 2122 Hz can
be inverted by about 2 lines of C code, and the phase response
will match the analog one. As long as you don't approach half
the sample rate the 'simple' digital filters are the same as the
corresponding analog ones. And the highest pole/zero frequency
is this case well below that limit.
8:51 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 07:15:29PM -0500, Monty Montgomery wrote:
Ah, I am perhaps used to seeing... dirtier
implementations. Yes, it's
intended to just be an EQ. Do you have links to the specified
forward/inverse linear filters? I may not be thinking of a proper
implementation then.
Just two general-purpose first order IIR sections
is all you need for either the forward or inverse
filter. Any textbook on digital filters will tell
you how to program them. Inverting the LF filter
requires an extra pole below the audio range to
avoid infinite DC gain.
I didn't say that a digital filter couldn't
invert it (at least as
well as it can be inverted). I said that the typical digital EQ, the
kind you're going to find in any general purpose EQ plugin, is going
to be an acausal linear-phase filter.
The channel EQ you'll find on most digital mixers is
not linear-phase at all, nor acausal. In almost all
cases it's just first and second order IIR filters.
For plugins anything goes, but the most of them are
not linear phase, and no filter operating in real
time can ever be acausal - by definition.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
11:16 p.m.
Just two general-purpose first order IIR sections
is all you need for either the forward or inverse
filter. Any textbook on digital filters will tell
you how to program them. Inverting the LF filter
requires an extra pole below the audio range to
avoid infinite DC gain.
I'm aware of how to construct digital IIR filters :-) I was hoping
you had a URL to a nice official analog topology. The specific
implementation details matter.
The channel EQ you'll find on most digital mixers
is
not linear-phase at all, nor acausal.
OK. Time to become incredibly overspecific:
Every digital EQ implementation I'm aware of for Linux is linear
phase. I wrote a few of 'em.
One could just build a digital equivalent of any of the old analog
topologies. For many filters (eg, compressors and the like) this is
totally the way to go. For EQ, I'll take a linear phase
implementation any day. That's the route taken by every piece of FOSS
EQ source code I've ever seen (it would not be surprising if I missed
a few). If you say VST has done a few this way (for whatever reason)
then I believe you.
In almost all
cases it's just first and second order IIR filters.
For plugins anything goes, but the most of them are
not linear phase, and no filter operating in real
time can ever be acausal - by definition.
Negative delays are perfectly possible in digital. Well, if you
ignore the wallclock (assume a global system latency, and a local
negative latency within the system). It's just a semantic/terminology
argument at this point.
Cheers,
Monty
14 Feb
14 Feb
7:35 a.m.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0500, Monty Montgomery wrote:
The only examples I know of are the FFT based EQ
in Jamin, and the octave band filters that come
with jconvolver.
Do you have some other examples ?
I'm aware of how to construct digital IIR filters
:-) I was hoping
you had a URL to a nice official analog topology. The specific
implementation details matter.
I'll make a nice drawing later. Right now I have
to finish my LAC paper !!
The channel EQ
you'll find on most digital mixers is
not linear-phase at all, nor acausal.
OK. Time to become incredibly overspecific:
Every digital EQ implementation I'm aware of for Linux is linear
phase. I wrote a few of 'em. Negative delays are perfectly possible in digital.
Well, if you
ignore the wallclock (assume a global system latency, and a local
negative latency within the system). It's just a semantic/terminology
argument at this point.
That's why I wrote 'operating in real time'.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
12:51 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 6:31 AM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
The only examples I know of are the FFT based EQ
in Jamin, and the octave band filters that come
with jconvolver.
Uh, those are linear phase and acausal. Also beware of JAMin's using
the FFT for non-time-invariant effects, it will modulate the audio
that passes through. Not a problem for FFT, huge problem for things
like compressors.
Monty
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0500, Monty
Montgomery wrote:
Uh, I was hoping for an official recommendation from the spec, not an
intuited circuit that works. I didn't know of any officially
recommended one, but the way you were talking about it, I thought you
did. Either from the original only sort-of-standard RIAA curve or the
eventual IEC specced version. I don't need a schematic of a simple RC
bandpass, thanks :-)
I'm aware of how to construct digital IIR
filters :-) I was hoping
you had a URL to a nice official analog topology. The specific
implementation details matter.
I'll make a nice drawing later. Right now I have
to finish my LAC paper !! The channel EQ you'll find on most digital mixers
is
not linear-phase at all, nor acausal.
OK. Time to become incredibly overspecific:
Every digital EQ implementation I'm aware of for Linux is linear
phase. I wrote a few of 'em.
1:35 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0500, Monty Montgomery wrote:
Every digital EQ implementation I'm aware of for
Linux is linear
phase. I wrote a few of 'em.
Meanwhile I looked at TAP, SWH and Invada.
Lots of EQ, but *NOT A SINGLE* linear phase one.
Examples, apart from Jamin's FFT EQ ? Where are yours ?
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
1:50 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0500, Monty
Montgomery wrote:
I can't even tell any longer what you're saying or not. I thought you
just claimed JAMin wasn't linear, now you are? If it's EQing via a
fixed length convolution, it's linear phase.
Apologies to everyone for helping to turn this into a dick wagging
contest. I'm not really interested in continuing it, last message on
the subject.
Cheers,
Monty
Every digital EQ implementation I'm aware of
for Linux is linear
phase. I wrote a few of 'em.
Meanwhile I looked at TAP, SWH and Invada.
Lots of EQ, but *NOT A SINGLE* linear phase one.
Examples, apart from Jamin's FFT EQ ? Where are yours ?
1:57 p.m.
Examples,
apart from Jamin's FFT EQ ? Where are yours ?
I can't even tell any longer what you're saying or not. I thought you
just claimed JAMin wasn't linear, now you are? If it's EQing via a
fixed length convolution, it's linear phase.
2:26 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:57:23PM -0500, Monty Montgomery wrote:
Oh, Oops, I *did* misread that message. You did say
JAMin was linear.
So I have to apologize for that. Also the EQ in Sweep and the swh
LADSPA plugins are linear.
SWH has no linear phase EQ, and sweep doesn't have its
own but uses LADSPA.
My EQs: Audacity (though what's there now has
morphed since and is
known to be buggy from a few one-off bugs), Postfish and Beaverphonic
(this is a specialty application).
I don't know these ones.
I'm still not really interested in continuing this
under a
confrontational tone, so I'm still dropping the subject. But I owed
you an apology w.r.t. JAMin.
Thanks, it was clearly just a misunderstanding.
But I'm still looking for a linear phase EQ plugin.
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
1:58 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:50:20PM -0500, Monty Montgomery wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM,
<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0500, Monty Montgomery wrote:
>
>> Every digital EQ implementation I'm aware of for Linux is linear
>> phase. I wrote a few of 'em.
>
> Meanwhile I looked at TAP, SWH and Invada.
>
> Lots of EQ, but *NOT A SINGLE* linear phase one.
>
> Examples, apart from Jamin's FFT EQ ? Where are yours ?
I can't even tell any longer what you're
saying or not. I thought you
just claimed JAMin wasn't linear, now you are? If it's EQing via a
fixed length convolution, it's linear phase.
You claimed (see above):
Every digital EQ implementation I'm aware of for Linux
is linear phase. I wrote a few of 'em.
I responed that the only one I know if that *is* linear
phase is Jamin's FFT EQ. And that there is no linear
phase EQ to be found in TAP, SWH, and Invada.
So where are the examples to substantiate your claim ?
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
1:59 p.m.
I wonder why no one would've seen something like
this coming though?
Was it just a bunch of suits saying, "Yeah, let's sell some cds!" while
the
original mastering guy prepared to cringe come "Digital Release Date"? (1
day later?)
Oversimplifying it... yeah that's sort of what happened.
The industry wasn't technologically prepared to rerelease all those
albums. They didn't have enough equipment, much of the equipment
wasn't yet very good, they didn't have enough qualified people who
knew how to use the equipment they had. The 80s/early 90s simply did
not have the cheap ubiquitous digital power that exists today. The
inexpensive machine on my desk beats a Cray2 on every metric. It
wasn't too long ago that good custom 12 bit (12 bit!) sampling
consoles cost hundreds of kilobucks. And good mastering engineers
were (and are) high priced talent. Last but not least, not everyone
took good notes. "Did this cutting master have preemphasis?" "How does
it sound?" "Meh, it sounds OK." "Then go with it."
It took a long time to sort out the mess that the rush caused, and the
reputation of the CD suffered for a really long time. But they made a
*ton* of money. The late 80s and early 90s were the music industry's
version of the housing bubble. oh boo hoo sales are down recently--
sales had never been so incredibly inflated as during the great
vinyl->CD switchover when just about everyone replaced their
collections at $16 a pop. Some had to do it twice after things were
finally properly remastered.
Monty
2:46 p.m.
'Piece of Mind' on CD still sounds good to me -- sweet guitars, crisp
drums, very simple and uncluttered mix. It's not like the over-distorted,
over-processed, and over-compressed crap that too often makes it to CD these
days. (n.b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war)
I want my dynamic range back!
-Sean
I half-way agree. The instruments sound "nice".
The overall mix seems flat and extremely cold, to me.
I'm sure some of this is just my 'grown up ears' though.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
I wonder why
no one would've seen something like this coming though?
Was it just a bunch of suits saying, "Yeah, let's sell some cds!" while
the
original mastering guy prepared to cringe come
"Digital Release Date"? (1
day later?)
Oversimplifying it... yeah that's sort of what happened.
The industry wasn't technologically prepared to rerelease all those
albums. They didn't have enough equipment, much of the equipment
wasn't yet very good, they didn't have enough qualified people who
knew how to use the equipment they had. The 80s/early 90s simply did
not have the cheap ubiquitous digital power that exists today. The
inexpensive machine on my desk beats a Cray2 on every metric. It
wasn't too long ago that good custom 12 bit (12 bit!) sampling
consoles cost hundreds of kilobucks. And good mastering engineers
were (and are) high priced talent. Last but not least, not everyone
took good notes. "Did this cutting master have preemphasis?" "How does
it sound?" "Meh, it sounds OK." "Then go with it."
It took a long time to sort out the mess that the rush caused, and the
reputation of the CD suffered for a really long time. But they made a
*ton* of money. The late 80s and early 90s were the music industry's
version of the housing bubble. oh boo hoo sales are down recently--
sales had never been so incredibly inflated as during the great
vinyl->CD switchover when just about everyone replaced their
collections at $16 a pop. Some had to do it twice after things were
finally properly remastered.
Monty
3:28 p.m.
Quoting "Aaron L." <elmastero74(a)gmail.com>om>:
I half-way agree. The instruments sound "nice".
The overall mix seems flat and extremely cold, to me.
I'm sure some of this is just my 'grown up ears' though.
To some degree I think it has to do with comparison. For that time it
might have been state of the art mixing/mastering, but now we're used
to a different type of sounds so the old mixes sounds flat in
comparison. It might also be nostalgia.
It'd be interresting if you managed to get hold of an/the old cassette
and do an A-B comparison.
-Peder
4:22 p.m.
On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 20:28 +0100, Peder Hedlund wrote:
To some degree I think it has to do with comparison.
For that time it
might have been state of the art mixing/mastering, but now we're used
to a different type of sounds so the old mixes sounds flat in
comparison. It might also be nostalgia.
Old mixes sound flat? What do you man? I think old mixes have tons
of depth.
It'd be interresting if you managed to get hold of
an/the old cassette
and do an A-B comparison.
Comparing what, to what?
Rich...
15 Feb
15 Feb
3:30 a.m.
Quoting Ricardus Vincente <wizardofgosz(a)gmail.com>om>:
To compare the cassette mix that he remembered so fondly to the CD mix
he found lacking. I have a hunch it might be entirely possible that
the sound he remembers from tape is just nostalgia and that the CD in
fact sounds more or less the same as the cassette.
On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 20:28 +0100, Peder Hedlund
wrote:
Perhaps I should have added a 'might', as in 'the old mixes might sound
flat'
To some degree I think it has to do with
comparison. For that time it
might have been state of the art mixing/mastering, but now we're used
to a different type of sounds so the old mixes sounds flat in
comparison. It might also be nostalgia.
Old mixes sound flat? What do you man? I think old mixes have tons
of depth. It'd be
interresting if you managed to get hold of an/the old cassette
and do an A-B comparison.
Comparing what, to what?
9:09 a.m.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Peder Hedlund wrote:
Quoting Ricardus Vincente
<wizardofgosz(a)gmail.com>om>:
Not necessarily... I've got a few tapes that sounded way better than
the CD that was supposed to "replace" them, and that's pretty bad
considering how bad cassette sounds. There's something about the way we
hear that can way more easily deal with background hiss, rumble, pitch
instability, and a multitude of other evils than deal with grainy
metallic thin sound that has all the body removed from it.
Granted, some of that may have been the way the original recording
really sounded, and the cassette may have been flattering it with its
pleasant mid-bass saturation. I can't imagine that's always it though.
People always say that when we hear that sort of effect from CD's, the
CD is just telling the truth (kind of like the same excuse I hear about
certain Mackie monitor speakers), when we all know that almost all
recordings made before the 90's were done on an original recording
medium of multitrack tape itself. Surely the studio master tape didn't
sound like a grainy metallic CD!
--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ Physical Sciences Div. + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ James Franck Institute + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 20:28 +0100, Peder Hedlund
wrote:
To compare the cassette mix that he remembered so fondly to the CD mix
he found lacking. I have a hunch it might be entirely possible that
the sound he remembers from tape is just nostalgia and that the CD in
fact sounds more or less the same as the cassette. and do an A-B comparison.
Comparing what, to what?
1:22 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Brent Busby <brent(a)keycorner.org> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Peder Hedlund wrote:
Here's a good example. Listen to any of the songs from "Out of the
Blue"
that also appear on this cd:
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Magic-Electric-Light-Orchestra/dp/B000002A2V
They sound no where near as good as the originals on vinyl. It's actually
pretty impressive in how much crappier they sound. Like someone would have
had to go out of their way (or be neglecting something obvious) to make them
sound that way.
The very essence of 'crap-tacular'.
Quoting Ricardus Vincente
<wizardofgosz(a)gmail.com>om>:
Not necessarily... I've got a few tapes that sounded way better than
On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 20:28 +0100, Peder Hedlund
wrote:
To compare the cassette mix that he remembered so fondly to the CD mix
he found lacking. I have a hunch it might be entirely possible that
the sound he remembers from tape is just nostalgia and that the CD in
fact sounds more or less the same as the cassette. and do an A-B comparison.
Comparing what, to what? the CD that was supposed to "replace"
them, and that's pretty bad
considering how bad cassette sounds. There's something about the way we
hear that can way more easily deal with background hiss, rumble, pitch
instability, and a multitude of other evils than deal with grainy
metallic thin sound that has all the body removed from it.
Granted, some of that may have been the way the original recording
really sounded, and the cassette may have been flattering it with its
pleasant mid-bass saturation. I can't imagine that's always it though.
People always say that when we hear that sort of effect from CD's, the
CD is just telling the truth (kind of like the same excuse I hear about
certain Mackie monitor speakers), when we all know that almost all
recordings made before the 90's were done on an original recording
medium of multitrack tape itself. Surely the studio master tape didn't
sound like a grainy metallic CD!
13 Feb
13 Feb
8:19 p.m.
Monty Montgomery wrote:
Not only that, but the per unit cost of manufacturing a CD is much
cheaper. If you still charge the same amount for an LP length recording,
the change in format instantly increases the label's margin significantly.
I wonder why
no one would've seen something like this coming though?
Was it just a bunch of suits saying, "Yeah, let's sell some cds!" while
the
original mastering guy prepared to cringe come "Digital Release Date"? (1
day later?)
It took a long time to sort out the mess that the rush caused, and the
reputation of the CD suffered for a really long time. But they made a
*ton* of money. The late 80s and early 90s were the music industry's
version of the housing bubble. oh boo hoo sales are down recently--
sales had never been so incredibly inflated as during the great
vinyl->CD switchover when just about everyone replaced their
collections at $16 a pop. Some had to do it twice after things were
finally properly remastered.
5397
days inactive
5400
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
30 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Aaron L. -
Brent Busby -
Folderol -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Juan Aboites -
Monty Montgomery -
Peder Hedlund -
Ricardus Vincente -
Roger -
Sean Bolton