Oh, sorry about the 6 dB. I made the 16- and 32-bit versions, then noticed I had the gain slider on the DP mixer pushed up. I pulled it back to 0 dB and made new bounces, plus the residual and dithered version subsequently, but must have grabbed the wrong 32-bit version for upload.
I have no idea what you’re implying about "IMHO this is 13bit worth of audio inside a 16bit file”. I took care to have no gain after the truncation (except the accidental 6 dB on the 32-bit file). If you mean that the peak loudness of the synth isn’t hitting full scale, then, A) welcome to music, and B) it’s immaterial—I could have had a louder sound with a similar tail that would have produced the same distortion. I’m not surprised you couldn’t hear it, as I said it required fairly high listening levels and I don’t know what your equipment is. It can be heard on a professional monitoring system. I’m monitoring off my TASCAM DM-3200, and it does not have a loud headphone amp—I can’t hear it there. But it’s right on the edge—if I boost it +6 dB I have no problem hearing it. But my monitoring speakers get louder than the headphones, so I can hear it there. And I know engineers who routinely monitor much louder than my gear can get. > On Feb 5, 2015, at 4:55 AM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: > > I couldn't hear any difference (through headphones), even after an insane > boost, and even though your 16bit truncated wav was 6dB(?) lower than the > 32bit wav > > But even if I could hear it, IMHO this is 13bit worth of audio inside a 16bit > file. > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:13 AM > To: A discussion list for music-related DSP > Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles > > OK, here’s my new piece, I call it Diva bass—to satisfy your request for me > to make something with truncation distortion apparent. (If it bother you that > my piece is one note, imagine that this is just the last note of a longer > piece.) > > I spent maybe 30 seconds getting the sound—opened Diva (default “minimoog” > modules), turn the mixer knobs down except for VCO 1, set range to 32’, > waveform to triangle, max release on the VCA envelope. > > In 32-bit float glory: > > http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2032-bit%20float.wav > > Truncated to 16-bit, no dither (Quan Jr plug-in, Digital Performer), saved to > 16-bit wave file: > > http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2016-bit%20truncated.wav > > You’ll have to turn your sound system up, not insanely loud, but loud. (I > said that this would be the case before.) I can hear it, and I know engineers > who monitor much louder, routinely, than I’m monitoring to hear this. My > Equator Q10s are not terribly high powered, and I’m not adding any other gain > ahead of them in order to boost the quiet part. > > If you want to hear the residual easily (32-bit version inverted, summed with > 16-bit truncated, the result with +40 dB gain via Trim plug-in): > > http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2016-bit%20truncated%20residual%20+40dB.wav > > I don’t expect the 16-bit truncated version to bother you, but it does bother > some audio engineers. Here's 16-bit dithered version, for completeness, so > that you can decide if the added noise floor bothers you: > > http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2016-bit%20dithered.wav > > > >> On Feb 4, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >> >> Yes, I disagree with the "always". "Not always needed" means "it's sometimes >> needed", my point is that it's never needed, until proven otherwise. Your >> video proves that sometimes it's not needed, but not that sometimes it's >> needed. >> >> >> >> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:51 PM >> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >> >>> I totally understood the point of your video, that dithering to 16bit isn't >>> always needed - but that's what I disagree with. >> >> Sorry, Didier, I’m confused now. I took from your previous message that you >> feel 16-bit doesn’t need to be dithered ("dithering to 16bit will never make >> any audible difference”). Here you say that you disagree with "dithering to >> 16bit isn't always needed”. In fact, you are saying that it’s never >> needed—you disagree because “isn’t always needed” implies that it is >> sometimes needed—correct? >> >> >>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 5:06 AM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>> >>>>> Then, it’s no-win situation, because I could EASILY manufacture a bit of >>>>> music that had significant truncation distortion at 16-bit. >>> >>> Please do, I would really like to hear it. >>> >>> I have never heard truncation noise at 16bit, other than by playing with >>> levels in a such a way that the peaking parts of the rest of the sound >>> would destroy your ears or be very unpleasant at best. (you say 12dB, it's >>> already a lot) >>> >>> I totally understood the point of your video, that dithering to 16bit isn't >>> always needed - but that's what I disagree with. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:59 AM >>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>> >>> Hi Didier—You seem to find contradictions in my choices because you are >>> making the wrong assumptions about what I’m showing and saying. >>> >>> First, I’m not steadfast that 16-bit dither is always needed—and in fact >>> the point of the video was that I was showing you (the viewers) how you can >>> judge it objectively for yourself (and decide whether you want to dither). >>> This is a much better way that the usual that I hear from people, who often >>> listen to the dithered and non-dithered results, and talk about the >>> "soundstage collapsing" without dither, “brittle” versus “transparent" , >>> etc. >>> >>> But if I’m to give you a rule of thumb, a practical bit of advice that you >>> can apply without concern that you might be doing something wrong in a >>> given circumstance, that advice is “always dither 16-bit reductions”. >>> First, I suspect that it’s below the existing noise floor of most music >>> (even so, things like slow fades of the master fader might override that, >>> for that point in time). Still, it’s not hard to manufacture something >>> musical that subject to bad truncation distortion—a naked, low frequency, >>> low-haromic-content sound (a synthetic bass or floor tom perhaps). Anyway, >>> at worst case, you’ve added white noise that you are unlikely to hear—and >>> if you do, so what? If broadband noise below -90 dB were a deal-breaker in >>> recorded music, there wouldn’t be any recorded music. Yeah, truncation >>> distortion at 16-bits is an edge case, but the cost to remove it is almost >>> nothing. >>> >>> You say that we can’t perceive quantization above 14-bit, but of course we >>> can. If you can perceive it at 14-bit in a given circumstance, and it’s an >>> extended low-level passage, you can easily raise the volume control another >>> 12 dB and be in the same situation at 16-bit. Granted, it’s most likely >>> that the recording engineer hears it and not the end-listener, but who is >>> this video aimed at if not the recording engineer? He’s the one making the >>> choice of whether to dither. >>> >>> Specifically: >>>> ..then why not use a piece of audio that does prove the point, instead? I >>>> know why, it's because you can’t... >>> >>> First, I would have to use my own music (because I don’t own 32-bit float >>> versions of other peoples’ music, even if I thought it was fair use to of >>> copyrighted material). Then, it’s no-win situation, because I could EASILY >>> manufacture a bit of music that had significant truncation distortion at >>> 16-bit. I only need to fire up one of my soft synths, and ring out some >>> dull bell tones and bass sounds. Then people would accuse me of fitting the >>> data to the theory, and this isn’t typical music made in a typical high-end >>> study by a professional engineer. And my video would be 20 minutes long >>> because I’m not looking at a 40-second bit of music any more. Instead, I >>> clearly explained my choice, and it proved to be a pretty good one, and >>> probably fairly typical at 16-bit, wouldn’t you agree? As I mentioned at >>> the end of the video, the plan is to further examine some high-resolution >>> music that a Grammy award-winning engineer and producer friend of mine has >>> said he will provide. >>> >>>> ...and dithering to 16bit will never make any audible difference. >>> >>> If you mean “never make any audible difference” in the sense that it won’t >>> matter one bit to sales or musical enjoyment, I agree. I imagine >>> photographers make fixes and color tweaks that will never be noticed in the >>> magazine or webpage that the photo will end up in either. But I guarantee >>> you, there are lots of audio engineers that will not let that practically >>> (using the word in the original “practical" sense–don’t read as “almost") >>> un-hearable zipper in the fade go. If they know it’s there, and in some >>> cases they CAN actually hear it, with the volume cranked, you can tell them >>> all day and all night that they are wasting there time dithering, because >>> listeners will never hear it, but they will want to get rid of it. And the >>> cost of that rash action to get rid of it? Basically nothing. Hence my >>> advice: Dither and don’t worry about it—or listen to the residual up close >>> and see if there’s nothing to worry about, if you prefer. >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sorry, but if I sum up this video, it goes like this: >>>> you need dithering to 16bit and I'm going to prove it, then the video >>>> actually proves that you don't need it starting at 14bit, but adds "it's >>>> only because of the nature of the sound I used for demo". >>>> >>>> ..then why not use a piece of audio that does prove the point, instead? >>>> I know why, it's because you can't, and dithering to 16bit will never make >>>> any audible difference. >>>> It's ok to tell the world to dither to 16bit, because it's nothing harmful >>>> either (it only mislays people from the actual problems that matter in >>>> mixing). But if there is such a piece of audio that makes dithering to >>>> 16bit any audible, without an abnormally massive boost to hear it, I'd >>>> like to hear it. >>>> >>>> Andrew says he agrees, but then adds that it's important when you >>>> post-edit the sound. Yes it is, totally, but if you're gonna post-edit the >>>> sound, you will rather keep it 32 or 24bit anyway - the argument about >>>> dithering to 16bit is for the final mix. >>>> >>>> To me, until proven otherwise, for normal-to-(not abnormally)-high dynamic >>>> ranges, we can't perceive quantization above 14bit for audio, and 10bits >>>> for images on a screen (debatable here because monitors aren't linear but >>>> that's another story). Yet people seem to care less about images, and >>>> there's gradient banding all over the place. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Andrew Simper >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:06 AM >>>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>>> >>>> Hi Nigel, >>>> >>>> Isn't the rule of thumb in IT estimates something like: "Double the >>>> time you estimated, then move it up to the next time unit"? So 2 weeks >>>> actually means 4 months, but since we're in Music IT I think we should >>>> be allowed 5 times instead of 2, so from my point of view you've >>>> actually delivered on time ;) >>>> >>>> Thanks very much for doing the video! I agree with your recommended >>>> workflows of 16 bit = always dither, and 24 bit = don't dither. I >>>> would probably go further and say just use triangular dither, since at >>>> some time in the future you may want to pitch the sound down (ie for a >>>> sample library of drums with a tom you want to tune downwards, or >>>> remixing a song) then any noise shaped dither will cause an issue >>>> since the noise will become audible. >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> -- cytomic -- sound music software -- >>> -- >>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>> dsp links >>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >> >> -- >> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp >> links >> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >> >> ----- >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Base de données virale: 4281/9056 - Date: 04/02/2015 >> -- >> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp >> links >> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > > -- > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp > links > http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > > ----- > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2015.0.5645 / Base de données virale: 4281/9059 - Date: 05/02/2015 > -- > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp > links > http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
