|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK.............3 x Pulsar cards working fine [message #76089 is a reply to message #76087] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 07:40   |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>>>>> same
>>>>> 48 bit fix mixer. I load up the same file in Nuendo (no eq, zero
>>>>> fader)..results.
>>>>> different sonic character.
>>>>>
>>>>> PT having a top end touch..Nuendo, nice smooth(flat) sound. And I'm
>just
>>>>> taking about a stereo wav file nulled with no eq..nothing
>>>>> ..zilch..nada..
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, there are devices (keyboards, dum machines) on the market today
>
>>>>> that
>>>>> have a Master Buss Compressor and EQ set to on with the top end notched
>>>
>>>>> up.
>>>>> Why? because it gives their product an competitive advantageover the
>>>>> competition..
>>>>> Ex: Yahama's Motif ES, Akai's MPC 1000, 2500, Roland's Fantom.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, why would'nt a DAW manufactuer code in an extra (ooommf) to make
>
>>>>> their
>>>>> DAW sound better. Especially, given the "I hate Digtal Summing" crowd?
>>>
>>>>> And,
>>>>> If I'm a DAW manufactuer, what would give my product a sonic edge over
>>> the
>>>>> competition?
>>>>>
>>>>> We live in the "louder is better" audio world these days, so a DAW
that
>>>
>>>>> can
>>>>> catch my attention 'sonically" will probaly will get the sell. That's
>>> what
>>>>> happend to me back in 1997 when I heard Paris. I was floored!!! Still
>>> to
>>>>> this day, nothing has floored me like that "Road House Blues Demo"
I
>
>>>>> heard
>>>>> on Paris.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was it the hardware ? was it the software. I remember talking with
>>>>> Edmund
>>>>> at the 2000 winter Namm, and told me that he & Steve set out to
>>>>> reproduce
>>>>> the sonics of big buck analog board (eq's) and all.. And, summing was
>>> a
>>>>> big
>>>>> big issue for them because they (ID) thought that nobody has gotten
>>>>> it(summing)
>>>>> right. And by right, they meant, behaved like a console with a wide
>lane
>>>>> for all of those tracks..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:458be8d5$1@linux...
>>>>>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK.............3 x Pulsar cards working fine [message #76091 is a reply to message #76089] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 08:42 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
eating up all cpu processing, that could likely
>>>
>>>>>>only
>>>>>
>>>>>>surface as is a built in EQ, which
>>>>>>no one wants universally in summing, and anyone can add at will already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So it hasn't happened yet and isn't likely to as it detours from the
>
>>>>>>basic
>>>>>
>>>>>>tenant of audio recording - recreate what comes in as
>>>>>>accurately as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What Digi did in recoding their summing engine was try to recover some
>>>>>>of the damage done by the 24-bit buss in Mix systems. Motorola 56k
dsps
>>>>> are
>>>>>>24-bit fixed point chips and I think
>>>>>>the new generation (321?) still is, but they use double words now for
>>>>>>48-bits). And though plugins could process at 48-bit by
>>>>>>doubling up and using upper and lower 24-bit words for 48-bit outputs,
>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>buss
>>>>>>between chips was 24-bits, so they had to dither to 24-bits after every
>>>>>
>>>>>>plugin. The mixer (if I recall correctly) also
>>>>>>had a 24-bit buss, so what Digi did is to add a dither stage to the
>
>>>>>>mixer
>>>>> to
>>>>>>prevent this
>>>>>>constant truncation of data. 24-bits isn't enough to cover summing
>for
>>>>> more
>>>>>>than a few tracks without
>>>>>>losing information in the 16-bit world, and in the 24-bit world some
>>>>>>information will be lost, at least at the lowest levels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Adding a dither stage (though I think they did more than that - perhaps
>>>>>
>>>>>>implement a 48-bit double word stage as well),
>>>>>>simply smoothed over the truncation that was happening, but it didn't
>>>
>>>>>>solve
>>>>>
>>>>>>the problem, so with HD
>>>>>>they went to a double-word path - throughout I believe, including the
>>> path
>>>>>
>>>>>>between chips. I believe the chips
>>>>>>are still 24-bit, but by doubling up the processing (yes at a cost
of
>>>
>>>>>>twice
>>>>>
>>>>>>the overhead), they get a 48-bit engine.
>>>>>>This not only provided better headroom, but greater resolution. Higher
>>>>> bit
>>>>>>depths subdivide the amplitude with greater resolution, and that's
>>>>>>really where we get the definition of dynamic range - by lowering the
>>>
>>>>>>signal
>>>>>
>>>>>>to quantization noise ratio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With DAWs that use 32-bit floating point math all the way through,
the
>>>
>>>>>>only
>>>>>
>>>>>>reason for altering the summing
>>>>>>is by error, and that's an error that would actually be hard to make
>and
>>>>> get
>>>>>>past a very basic alpha stage of testing.
>>>>>>There is a small difference in fixed point math and floating point
math,
>>>>> or
>
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
