Jump to content

50 Must-Read Pro Audio Articles from 2013


VASI
 Share

Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great read, thanks for sharing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't agree with this one:

 

Why (almost) everything you thought you knew about bit depth is probably wrong

http://www.sonicscoo...probably-wrong/

 

<edited>

 

The comments to this article dig through the usual misunderstandings of this subject matter, so suffice it to say that the article didn't cover it clearly enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't agree with this one:

 

Why (almost) everything you thought you knew about bit depth is probably wrong

http://www.sonicscoo...probably-wrong/

 

<edited>

 

The comments to this article dig through the usual misunderstandings of this subject matter, so suffice it to say that the article didn't cover it clearly enough.

 

Tom, what did you disagree with? (Not a troll challenge, genuinely curious).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom and thank you, you are here to discuss these things.

 

This article about bit depth is not from science and engineering way (I mean extensive specifications). He talk with "general" form and I don't thing he wrote it to develop something new. But it is ok article; to get an idea (non-experienced and experienced people with audio).

 

Let's leave at the corner the numbers (exactly) and let's talk a little theoretical. I hope to get my point on this.

 

As we know the technology have changed. From analog tapes and shellacs to digital. Big change. Beautiful and helpful technology we have now and they have solve problems, hands and ears. No bought. From DVD rams to CF cards, HDD and SSD. Digital revolution.

 

I was born back to 1988, so I missed the analog recordings. Razors, tools, bobbins etc; I get an idea during my sound engineering school. This technology belong to a different era; which I respect it (technology and fathers of recordings). But now we have something different.

 

What we have now? We stuck in a technology which offer (or the way) 48kHz sample rate and 24bit rate recordings for dialogues. Sure sounds very good. I am not disagree. Someone we will say is enough; someone not. Low size of data, good sound, easy transfer, easy edit, easy playback. Why someone need to change that route (or standard)? Well. Why we jump from analog to digital then? Because (for me) we need to record, edit and playback; the clarity, fidelity of the way we hear. What we hear and what we done now; it's not even close for me.

 

I'm trying to speak from philosophical part and not from numbers as numbers. I am not a like the way we capture the dialogues today. Call me newbie or wanna-be (as Senator say). No problem. I would like to run the time back and hear the responses when someone told "ok will we go from analog to digital". Burn in fire V. haha

 

I'm not scientist or engineer to know how to write or design a mic preamp or code. But the school first and after the internet; helps me a lot to learn what that does and doesn't. What is good and what is not good.

 

As humans we have something. That called "need" (probably wrong vocabulary). Better way of communication. Better way of transportation. I will add another "need". Better way we hear something when that comes via playback. Huge impact in the chain. Microphones, mic preamps, A/D D/A converters, sample rates, bit rates, speakers and many many other chains between and after.

 

I have a vision: To deliver one time better audio fidelity and clarity to the viewers. And the current way or technology doesn't help. Why? Because our ears have trained to hear that quality. If will improve something new (not necessary new technology at all) then we will change the way the masses hear.

 

:)

 

Best

V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article covered so many things at once, it seemed it was conflating things that reinforced the misunderstandings instead of clearing them up.  But the first comment was from Ethan, who I completely respect in this field. He agreed with the content, so I went back to re-read it more carefully to see that it was just a delivery problem, not the content.

 

The crux of the problem is the use of the word "resolution", the article is correct in that it doesn't mean what people intuit from a graphics perspective.  If he'd left it at that instead of describing all the ways it is different, the comments wouldn't have gone over it so many different ways.

 

Since the article title is bit-depth, I was expecting some focus on just that.   The biggest non-intuitive thing about bit-depth for me is the relationship between number of bits and dynamic range.  Sure there's Shannon theory on the mathematical side, but then you've conflated information density with dynamic range.  Is it possible to talk about just bit-depth without touching on Frequency range?

One of the video links actually did a better job of just that - playing back a 1kHz sine tone (32 bit floating source) when truncated to 8 bit, dithered to 8 bit and dithered to 16 bits.   Of course you can tell the 8 bit dithered version has a huge background hiss, but the tone itself is clean.  

On a deeper mathematical level, I'm interested in the relationship between quantization error (from reduced bit depth) and jitter, but that's not something that the average user can point at and recognize.

 

As an equipment designer, it's absolutely essential to know the correct bit-depth at various points of a system, but if the average reader comes away from the article with "pff, 16 bits is fine", that undermines the need for higher word lengths where they do matter.

I don't want people distrusting manufacturers by thinking we're putting in more bits than is required, just to increase some fake value and raising the price.

 

Tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

 

People doesn't have distrust to manufacturers. They have trust and you can see it here since you read this forum. The case what the end users like and don't like is far away from the case what we hear now from the current technology. As I said before, back in old days the way of people hearing it was C (because of technology in this era). When the digital coming; the way of people hear (and not hearing) is B (because of current technology). But we stuck. Maybe we approach the sound quality in wrong way; maybe not and that's why I said "not necessary new technology" (like more bits).

 

Don't forget the "average reader" have exactly the same thought about "24 bits" as you describe about "16 bits". It is vice versa and for some manufacturers who advertise the same features (like frequency response), but in finally listening it's far away. Hmm I am not talk about this.

 

Am talking about the way we think for some things.

 

Best

V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't it like with 4K..?  the bigger the number, the better..?

 

Not at all, but from 576 to 1080 it was a major step and have change the way we see the picture. Lets face it and don't hide back from our fingers. It's something different the "more pixels" from "quality pixels". And it's something different the downscaling from upscaling. If the 4k (and not 4K as EBU explained well back in IBC) doesn't make a sense; then why exist?

 

But again it is not my point the "bigger - better".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I want to strongly recommend something solid, not friggen OPINIONS

Producing Great Sound for Digital Video 2nd (second) Edition by Rose, Jay published by Focal Press (2002) (0010)

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_39?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=producing%20great%20sound%20for%20digital%20video%20second%20edition&sprefix=producing+great+sound+for+digital+video%2Caps%2C734&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aproducing%20great%20sound%20for%20digital%20video%20second%20edition

 

new $ 50 used $ 2.00 or free if you are devious.  Jay is on this board occasionally. He is a rational human being. ( I have found few mixers where this applies - yes there are some! )

 

of course none of this has anything to do with a financially successful career as SOUNDMIXER.

 

wolf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, Producing Great Sound for Film and Video is in the third edition and still going strong at Amazon.

 

http://dplay.com/book/pgs3e  :

  • Critical comments
  • reader comments
  • table of contents
  • downloadable sample content
  • link directly to Amazon

 

Audio Postproduction for Film and Video, second edition. Also still pretty hot.

 

Similar list at http://dplay.com/book/app2e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...