On 12/02/2015, gwenhwyfaer gwenhwyf...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2015, Andrew Simper a...@cytomic.com replied to me:
... I made 7 sawtooth
waves with random (static) phases and one straightforward sawtooth
wave, with all partials in phase. I just listened to it again, to
check my memory. On a
On 11/02/2015, Andrew Simper a...@cytomic.com replied to me:
... I made 7 sawtooth
waves with random (static) phases and one straightforward sawtooth
wave, with all partials in phase. I just listened to it again, to
check my memory. On a half-decent pair of headphones, the difference
between
On 11 February 2015 at 05:52, gwenhwyfaer gwenhwyf...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/02/2015, Didier Dambrin di...@skynet.be wrote:
Pretty easy to check the obvious difference between a pure low sawtooth, and
the same sawtooth with all partials starting at random phases.
Ah, this again? Good times.
, if the common end listener leaves that kind
of thing on.
-Message d'origine- From: Andrew Simper
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 6:52 AM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Hi Didier,
I count myself as having good hearing, I
On 2/10/15 8:49 AM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
What are you talking about - why would phase not matter? It's
extremely important (well, phase relationship between neighboring
partials).
well, it's unlikely you'll be able to hear the difference between this:
x(t) = cos(wt) - 1/3*cos(3wt) +
-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Hi Didier,
I count myself as having good hearing, I always wear ear protection at
any gigs / loud events and have always done so. My hearing is very
important to me since it is essential for my livelihood.
I made a new test, a 440 hz sine
On 2/9/15 10:19 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
But it matters, because the whole point of dithering to 16bit depends on how
common that ability is.
Depends on how common? I’m not sure what qualifies for common, but if it’s 1 in
100, or 5 in 100, it’s still a no-brainer because it costs nothing,
/A-law) encoding could
have applied to 16bit as well..
-Message d'origine-
From: robert bristow-johnson
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:37 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 2/9/15 10:19 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote
of a sawtooth, will give a
pretty distinctive metallic tone, absolutely nothing like a pure sawtooth,
and only differing in partial phases.
-Message d'origine-
From: robert bristow-johnson
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:47 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp
-
From: robert bristow-johnson
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 6:11 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
i certainly don't think we need 24-bit and 192 kHz just for listening to
music in our living room. but for intermediate nodes
So to you, that Pono player isn't snake oil?
It's more the 192kHz sampling rate that renders the Pono player into snake
oil territory. The extra bits probably aren't getting you much, but the
ridiculous sampling rate can only *hurt* audio quality, while consuming
that much more battery and
On 2/10/15 1:30 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
Of course 24bit isn't a bad idea for intermediate files, but 32bit
float is a better idea, even just because you don't have to normalize
store gain information that pretty much no app will read from the
file. And since the price of storage is
6:11 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 2/10/15 8:49 AM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
What are you talking about - why would phase not matter? It's extremely
important (well, phase relationship between neighboring partials).
well, it's unlikely
On 2/10/15 1:51 PM, Ethan Duni wrote:
So to you, that Pono player isn't snake oil?
It's more the 192kHz sampling rate that renders the Pono player into snake
oil territory. The extra bits probably aren't getting you much, but the
ridiculous sampling rate can only *hurt* audio quality, while
On 10/02/2015, Didier Dambrin di...@skynet.be wrote:
Pretty easy to check the obvious difference between a pure low sawtooth, and
the same sawtooth with all partials starting at random phases.
Ah, this again? Good times. I remember playing. I made 7 sawtooth
waves with random (static) phases
The only comment in that page that actually tells the story is buried:
--
Different media, different master
I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues
of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of
the 'same' recording. This
So you like the bar being raised, but not the way that Neil Young has
attempted?
Whether the higher resolution actually degrades the quality is a
topic up for future debate.
From the ponomusic webpage:
...and now, with the PonoPlayer, you can finally feel the master in all
its glory, in its
What I am interested in, regarding this discussion, is quite specific.
I make computer music using Csound, and usually using completely
synthesized sound, and so far only in stereo. Csound can run at any
sample rate, can output floating-point soundfiles, and can dither. My
sounds are not
I like the trend of releasing remastered material, where there is scope for
improved quality. Which isn't always, but there's an entire generation of
albums that were victims of the loudness wars, and various early work by
artists that hadn't access to quality mastering at the time, and so on,
why does higher-than-needed sample rate hurt audio quality?
might not be necessary, but how does it make it worse (excluding
the increased computational burden)?
The danger is that you are now including a bunch of out-of-band content in
your output signal, which can be transformed into in-band
Re:Pono, what about the DAC in the device? That could make an audible and real
difference. Also, there is undeniably more information in high res downloads,
if the original master was recorded to tape or to hi-res in Pro Tools. So, has
anyone ever considered the sample-level ‘phase’ effect
How do the crest factors of these different sawtooth waveforms compare?
I'd expect one with randomized phase to have a much lower crest factor.
Which is to say that I'd expect the in-phase sawtooth to activate a lot
more nonlinearity in the playback chain, which explains why that one is
easy to
Here's the guts of the Pono:
http://mikebeauchamp.com/2014/12/pono-player-teardown/
DAC is an ESS ES9018K2M
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/ES9018-2M%20PB%20Rev%200.8%20130619.pdf
32-bit - Wonder what the actual ENOB is...
Output driver is a discrete design.
Main MCU is apparently a TI OMAP
Nigel, I looked at your video again and it seems to me it's confusing as to
whether you mean 'don't dither the 24b final output' or 'don't ever dither at
24b'. You make statements several times that imply the former, but in your
discussion about 24b on all digital interfaces, sends and
That's a clear explanation of the self-dither assumed in A/D conversion, thanks
for posting it.
Vicki
On Feb 8, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Andrew Simper wrote:
Vicki,
If you look at the limits of what is possible in a real world ADC
there is a certain amount of noise in any electrical system due
: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:08 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 7 February 2015 at 03:52, Didier Dambrin di...@skynet.be wrote:
It was just several times the same fading in/out noise at different levels,
just to see if you
d'origine-
From: Andrew Simper
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:08 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 7 February 2015 at 03:52, Didier Dambrin di...@skynet.be wrote:
It was just several times the same fading in/out noise
OK, I don’t want to diverge too much from the practical to the theoretical, so
I’m going to run down what is usual, not what is possible, because it narrows
the field of discussion.
Most people I know are using recording systems that bussing audio at 32-bit
float, minimum, and use 64-bit float
I’m thankful for Andy posting that clear explanation too. Sometimes I
understate things—when I said that it would be “pretty hard to avoid” having
ample gaussian noise to self-dither in the A/D process, I was thinking
cryogenics (LOL).
On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:54 AM, Vicki Melchior
I have no argument at all with the cheap high-pass TPDF dither; whenever it was
published the original authors undoubtedly verified that the moment decoupling
occurred, as you say. And that's what is needed for dither effectiveness. If
you're creating noise for dither, you have the option to
On 2/7/15 8:54 AM, Vicki Melchior wrote:
Well, the point of dither is to reduce correlation between the signal and quantization noise. Its effectiveness requires that the error signal has given properties; the mean error should be zero and the RMS error should be independent of the signal. The
Vicki,
If you look at the limits of what is possible in a real world ADC
there is a certain amount of noise in any electrical system due to
gaussian thermal noise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
For example if you look at an instrument / measurement grade ADC like
32-bit internal floating point is not sufficient for certain DSP tasks
and will be plainly audible as causing all sorts of problems, a DF1 at
low frequencies is the classic example of this, it causes large
amounts of low frequency rumble. This is a completely different thing
to the final bit depth
trying to prove!
All the best,
Andy
-Message d'origine- From: Andrew Simper
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:21 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Sorry, you said until, which is even more confusing
:
Original Message
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
From: Vicki Melchior vmelch...@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, February 6, 2015 2:23 pm
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP music-dsp
-johnson
r...@audioimagination.com wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
From: Vicki Melchior vmelch...@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, February 6, 2015 2:23 pm
To: A discussion list for music
. Variability of amplitude, PDF and time coherence
were discussed if I recall.
Best,
Vicki
On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:27 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
mmh, Affiliation: Meridian Audio Ltd?
-Message d'origine-
From: Vicki Melchior
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 2:21 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
The following published double blind test contradicts the results
the 0dB annoyance starting point)
-Message d'origine-
From: Andrew Simper
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:21 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Sorry, you said until, which is even more confusing. There are
multiple points
Hi Michael,
I know that you already understand this, and comment that this is for internal
calculations, but for the sake of anyone who might misinterpret your 32-bit vs
64-bit comment, I’ll point out that this is a situation of error feedback—the
resulting error is much greater than the
.
-Message d'origine-
From: Nigel Redmon
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 7:13 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Mastering engineers can hear truncation error at the 24th bit but say it is
subtle and may require experience
Yes, but note that in the case Michael is reporting, all filters have
double-precision coeffs and data storage. It is only when passing samples
between unit generators that the difference lies (either single or
double precision is used). Still, I believe that
there can be audible differences.
Isn't it generally agreed that truncation noise is correlated with the signal?
“Is correlated”? No, but it can be.
First, if there is enough noise in the signal before truncation, then it’s
dithered by default—no correlation.
Second, if the signal is sufficiently complex, it seems, then there
This was done before John ffitch (I believe it was he) changed the
filter samples in even the single-precision version of Csound to use
double-precision. And I think this change may have been made as a
result of my report.
Regards,
Mike
-
So you hear all 6 too?
-Message d'origine-
From: Richard Dobson
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 4:10 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 06/02/2015 14:21, Andrew Simper wrote:
Sorry, you said until, which is even more confusing
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
The self dither argument is not as obvious as it may appear. To be effective
at dithering, the noise has to be at the right level of course but also should
be white and temporally constant. The noise floors present in music data
normally come from the self noise of the analog components used
Original Message
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
From: Vicki Melchior vmelch...@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, February 6, 2015 2:23 pm
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Sorry, you said until, which is even more confusing. There are
multiple points when I hear the noise until since it sounds like the
noise is modulated in amplitude by a sine like LFO for the entire
file, so the volume of the noise ramps up and down in a cyclic manner.
The last ramping I hear fades
On 6 February 2015 at 17:32, Didier Dambrin di...@skynet.be wrote:
Just out of curiosity, until which point do you hear the noise in this
little test (a 32bit float wav), starting from a bearable first part?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Cr7wjQ2EPucjFCSUhGNkVRaUE/view?usp=sharing
I hear
The following published double blind test contradicts the results of the old
Moran/Meyer publication in showing (a) that the differences between CD and
higher resolution sources is audible and (b) that failure to dither at the 16th
bit is also audible.
On 06/02/2015 14:21, Andrew Simper wrote:
Sorry, you said until, which is even more confusing. There are
multiple points when I hear the noise until since it sounds like the
noise is modulated in amplitude by a sine like LFO for the entire
file, so the volume of the noise ramps up and down in a
Mastering engineers can hear truncation error at the 24th bit but say it is
subtle and may require experience or training to pick up.
Quick observations:
1) The output step size of the lsb is full-scale / 2^24. If full-scale is 1V,
then step is 0.000596046447753906V, or 0.0596 microvolt
Isn't it generally agreed that truncation noise is correlated with the
signal?
The human ear is excellent at picking up on correlation, so a system
that introduces multiple correlated (noise) signals may reach a point
where it is perceptual, even if the starting point is a 24 bit signal.
I would
Thanks for the reference Vicki
What they are hearing is not noise or peaks sitting at the 24th
bit but rather the distortion that goes with truncation at 24b, and
it is said to have a characteristic coloration effect on sound. I'm
aware of an effort to show this with AB/X tests, hopefully it
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Music is not typically full scale. My level was arbitrary—where the mixer
knob happened to be sitting—but the note is relatively loud in a musical
setting.
You don’t get to use all 16 bits, all the time in music. So
anymore
-Message d'origine- From: Nigel Redmon
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 6:22 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Oh, sorry about the 6 dB. I made the 16- and 32-bit versions, then noticed I
had the gain
: Nigel Redmon
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 6:22 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
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
There is just no way A/B testing on a sample of listeners,
at loud, but still realistic listening levels, would show that
dithering to 16bit makes a difference.
Well, can you refer us to an A/B test that confirms your assertions?
Personally I take a dim view of people telling me that a test would
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
Hi Ethan,
On 6/02/2015 1:17 PM, Ethan Duni wrote:
There is just no way A/B testing on a sample of listeners,
at loud, but still realistic listening levels, would show that
dithering to 16bit makes a difference.
Well, can you refer us to an A/B test that confirms your assertions?
Personally
The AES report is highly controversial.
Plenty of sources dispute the findings.
---
Tom
On 2/5/2015 6:39 PM, Ross Bencina wrote:
Hi Ethan,
On 6/02/2015 1:17 PM, Ethan Duni wrote:
There is just no way A/B testing on a sample of listeners,
at loud, but still realistic listening levels,
: Thursday, February 05, 2015 6:22 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
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
killed your ears, so you would
have cranked your listening level down, and not heard the noise anymore
-Message d'origine-
From: Nigel Redmon
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 6:22 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Oh
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
Great point, Steffan, and glad to hear that you did some experiments. I have
not, but made an assumption (by considering the math involved in encoding) that
encoding from a high resolution source is best. My current music partner is a
long-time engineer and producer, and he has the habit of
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
: 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
On 4 February 2015 at 14:24, Didier Dambrin di...@skynet.be wrote:
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
, 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
LOL, yes on the time estimates…I headed down one path, and, no that wasn’t
right, down another…and another…oh, and now I need to write a plug-in..#D
buttons would be nice…and every time my videos double in length, it’s takes at
least four times as long to complete…
I understood that lesson
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
Great video!
Great explanation and nice demonstration. On the other hand, I’m tempted to
ask, if this discussion is still relevant due to the slight changes in music
distribution. CD is still a medium, many artist prefer for distribution, mostly
for the artwork and booklet, that’s delivered to
: [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
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
“In the coming weeks”, I said…OK, maybe 10 months…(I wasn’t *just* slow,
actually rethought and changed courses a couple of times)…
Here’s my new “Dither—The Naked Truth” video, looking at isolated truncation
distortion in music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCyA6LlB3As
On Mar 26, 2014,
no need to deal with denormals on x86's unless you use the FPU, though, as
SSE does it for you
-Message d'origine-
From: Nigel Redmon
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:04 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Ah yes
I don’t think any C compiler is going to do well for the 56k family. It’s so
reliant on parallel memory move optimization for reasonable performance. Not
that it can’t be done, but look at the history. The early ones could barely
spare a cycle (I spent a while optimizing the first version of
be 14bit worth of audio
-Message d'origine- From: Andrew Simper
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 3:30 AM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 29 March 2014 03:31, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2014-03-28, robert
Ah yes, the hated denormals—still not hard to deal with, but every once in a
while, you get too comfortable and forget about them and... I meant easy in
that most people don’t pay attention to the susceptibility of certain
topologies to quantization error, and with doubles you *mostly* don’t
Dither theory is way cool. The problem with quantization noise is that it's
correlated to the signal. This is the reason it sounds so horrible. When
you're doing 1 bit dsp, dither (and noise shaping) is an absolute
requirement. When rendering to 8 bits you definitely benefit from
dithering. 16
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Emanuel Landeholm
emanuel.landeh...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
16 bits and above though... Color me a skeptic. I'm sure it kind
of makes sense to apply some form of dithering when rendering a critically
sampled mix to 16 bits. This way you can turn the volume knob
On 3/28/14 12:25 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
my opinion is: above 14bit, dithering is pointless (other than for
marketing reasons),
14 bits??? i seriously disagree. i dunno about you, but i still listen
to red-book CDs (which are 2-channel, uncompressed 16-bit fixed-point).
they would sound
It will depend on you monitoring/listening equipment and situation.
I can easily hear the difference between a 192 or 96kHz 24 (or 22 bits +
exponent) bit and downgrading to 48 or 44.1 / 24 bit OR to 192 or 96 kHz
16 bits. Let alone both, easily audible.
It becomes ridiculous when using
, March 28, 2014 9:56 AM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Dither theory is way cool. The problem with quantization noise is that it's
correlated to the signal. This is the reason it sounds so horrible. When
you're doing 1 bit dsp, dither
:04 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 3/28/14 12:25 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
my opinion is: above 14bit, dithering is pointless (other than for
marketing reasons),
14 bits??? i seriously disagree. i dunno about you, but i still listen
Not to be overly antagonistic, but:
I can easily hear the difference between a 192 or 96kHz 24 (or 22 bits +
exponent) bit and downgrading to 48 or 44.1 / 24 bit OR to 192 or 96 kHz 16
bits. Let alone both, easily audible.
If you are hearing obvious differences between those settings, it's a
You think I'm stupid or something? I can truncate, use a very similar DA
convertor solution, that isn't difficult.
You could argue, if the reconstruction is good, it shouldn't matter much
to go from 48 to 44.1 for instance sure. Go try.
You could argue: my music is fine, even 128kbps mp3:
On 2014-03-28, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
14 bits??? i seriously disagree. i dunno about you, but i still
listen to red-book CDs (which are 2-channel, uncompressed 16-bit
fixed-point). they would sound like excrement if not well dithered
when mastered to the 16-bit medium.
I'd argue
First, it's meaningless to talk about bit depth alone
I agree with the points you raise and I'd like to add that you can also
trade bandwidth for bits.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2014-03-28, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
14 bits??? i seriously
On 2014-03-28, Emanuel Landeholm wrote:
I agree with the points you raise and I'd like to add that you can
also trade bandwidth for bits.
Totally, and you don't even need to go as far as to apply noise shaping.
High sampling rates and linear filtering already raises that question.
Okay, in
Quick idea about the dithering matter, without suggesting to shed a lot
of light sending myself in such subjects: making sure the bit depth is
properly used is understandable, even though it may well be the
difference between a straight AD-converted signal of 16 bits, coming
from a natural
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
