|
What does FFT/block size have to do with anything in this thread? 
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
When did I say anything about block size? And the relevancy of FFT is evident in the very post I mentioned it: "The point I'm trying to get at is that although a sound may only have bass in terms of how we perceive it, it still has higher frequencies in terms of how it behaves in a dynamic system. "
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
I use FFT nearly every day (mainly in GlissEQ) and I can't figure out for the life of me what you are trying to say...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:I use FFT nearly every day (mainly in GlissEQ) and I can't figure out for the life of me what you are trying to say...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
As far as I can tell this whole discussion was started on getting impact in your kick drums - and that's found nowhere but in the sub-100 Hz range. If it's impact you're after you need to move a lot of air, period. Of course the overtones are important too but they won't give you the kick in the gut if that's what you're after. You can use psychoacoustics to trick the listener into hearing phantom low tones but they won't feel them because there isn't enough energy for bone conduction to really kick in.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:As far as I can tell this whole discussion was started on getting impact in your kick drums - and that's found nowhere but in the sub-100 Hz range. If it's impact you're after you need to move a lot of air, period.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 15:43
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:As far as I can tell this whole discussion was started on getting impact in your kick drums - and that's found nowhere but in the sub-100 Hz range. If it's impact you're after you need to move a lot of air, period. Of course the overtones are important too but they won't give you the kick in the gut if that's what you're after. You can use psychoacoustics to trick the listener into hearing phantom low tones but they won't feel them because there isn't enough energy for bone conduction to really kick in. Agreed. A simple trick to making a drum more 'kicky' in PA circles is a tight Q, 1.5 to 3dB boost at 91Hz. It gives more of that 'hammer knocking wood' sound, particularly from front loaded horn cabinets. Quite often, you'll end up notching down the harmonic range to prevent horrible ringing from the hits affecting your vocals or guitars.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
Live EQ is fun, especially in a sub-optimal environments. As my instructor said "Don't be shy, hack the crap out of [the troublesome frequency]." 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:Agreed. A simple trick to making a drum more 'kicky' in PA circles is a tight Q, 1.5 to 3dB boost at 91Hz. It gives more of that 'hammer knocking wood' sound, particularly from front loaded horn cabinets. Quite often, you'll end up notching down the harmonic range to prevent horrible ringing from the hits affecting your vocals or guitars. Bass drums and most drum type sounds are atonal. So you can't post specific EQ settings because they will change depending on the drum sound. Lets take a Roland TR-808 bass drum:  Its a control voltage + trigger pulse input going into a mixer. This determines how loud the initial impulse is of a positive feedback oscillator, which goes into a low pass filter (LFP) and voltage control amplifier (VCA) in series. When you increase positive feedback, the decay of the drum gets longer. If you keep increasing it (beyond what a TR-808 lets you do with the decay controls) then it will just sound to infinity and you will have a constant sine wave. This oscillator is sometimes called a T network filter. Theres a low pass filter with input from the oscillator and then mixer, probably so that changing the decay by decreasing positive feedback does not decrease the pitch of the oscillator as well. At short decays, this drum sound doesn't have a fixed pitch. At long decays, the drum sound decays to a sine wave and that part of the sound does have a constant pitch reference that you can tune an instrument to. If you sample a TR-808 you can pitch it up and down in your sampler and play bass drum hits as notes with long decays (i.e. like in old school drum and bass). When you get into tunable bass drums that give you lots of modulation and decay control, it just becomes impossible to say "+3dB boost to 90hz at q factor 1" because there is no constant pitch reference. Either way, you can pitch a snare drum up and down but it isn't harmonic, so you can't (for example) tune a guitar to it. EQ is a strange thing because it has a constant, static effect on the music, whose frequency and harmonic content is always in flux. Its easy to dial up some settings that make one song sound subjectively better but then you skip to a different song by a different artist and it subjectively sounds like rear end because all of the pitch references, fundamental oscillating modes, the proportions of the mix etc. are different. Like you boost treble on a bass heavy song and for a while its banging. Then you skip to a treble heavy song, now the treble is over present and your ears start burning. EQ and production? Re-evaluate it on a case by case basis. EQ on an entire mix is best kept wide band and low gain for slight emphasis. If you are using EQ for full blown sound shaping in the mixdown then your recording and sound design is probably fubar'ed. WanderingKid fucked around with this message at 11:14 on May 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 10:51
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:Bass drums and most drum type sounds are atonal. So you can't post specific EQ settings because they will change depending on the drum sound.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 11:37
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:I think the EQ settings mentioned have to do with the human body's resonance, not the kick drum. There is a relatively narrow frequency band in the sub-bass range where you feel vibrations the most. Bingo. As long as you're also aware of the phase shift that any EQ adds, then you can get away with room tuning to a degree.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 13:33
|
|
|
Twiin posted:Timing jitter is theoretically audible when listening to a CD if it's above 400ns. If you have 400ns of jitter, your gear is broken. It is impossible to tell the difference between a perfect magical cable with 0ps jitter and an off-the-shelf sweatshop-labour radio shack cable with 2ns jitter. pico pico 10^-12
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
Stuff like jitter is really an engineering concern, with engineering solutions. I have no idea why hobbyists or even music pros even need to think about it. Dan Lavry summed it up right over at prosoundweb forums years and years ago. He pretty much said that the only way to evaluate jitter is to measure it and the equipment needed to measure timing discrepancy in the picosecond range is very costly (several tens of thousands of dollars apparently). Realistically, nobody can measure jitter in their own home. I'm pretty sure he also said that it was a much bigger concern in markets outside professional audio, with mission critical goals - high speed telecommunications, medical sciences etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
The audiophile world is largely filled with baseless claims that have no scientific backing and people fall for it based off anecdotal evidence from someone trying to justify their pricey purchase. Edit: That blackbox thing on page 11 is just lol worthy. Midorka fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jun 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
How can I remove jitter from my lossless audio files? Is there hardware for this?? *edit* Ahaha http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=919981 What are "early reflections?" big mean giraffe fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Jun 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
Sound waves bouncing off things between you and your speakers. Like say, a tile floor right in front of your speakers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 13:02
|
|
|
...and they are an actual problem when it comes to fidelity. If a reflection occurs within 10-15ms of the original impulse you will perceive it as part of the original sound. That means you'll get an ugly peak or dip at the resonant point and it can also make transients have less impact. Having a not-too-resonant room goes a long way to improving your sound quality. OTOH your brain does a phenomenal job of compensating. Don't ever measure the frequency response of your room if you don't want to be phenomenally depressed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
The first google hit is a pretty good, no bullshit explanation of what early reflection is. Its a property of reverberation. Figure 3.77 and 3.78 give you some idea of just how much of the sound you hear is not direct from the source. This is also a hypothetical room with no floor or ceiling and no objects inside it. I'd love to spend a few minutes in an anechoic chamber which is a completely dead room, designed so you only hear sound direct from source. I remember reading a comment by Bruce Swedien where he said that most people are amazed at how dull and soft everything sounds in such a room. If you increase the dimensions of our hypothetical room, it takes longer for the sound wave to travel to the walls and reflect back. Eventually the time delay will be great enough that you perceive the first (early) reflection as an echo. Sound also attenuates with distance so the bigger the environment, the louder the source has to be to project across the room, reflect off a wall or some solid object within the room and still be heard. This is one reason why you can stand in the nave of a Cathedral and hear an echo when you yell, but not if you whisper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 10:40
|
|
|
I was reading a page from Italy that detailed a monstrous in-floor horn loaded subwoofer system. When this caught my eye, "The Royal Device Audio Room features 3 sub-atomic particle accelerators on SPDIF data transmission". I was hoping for something like this...  It wasn't that cool.   'wth would you use a particle accelerator for?', you may ask.  Time Machine!  Any type of talking is useless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
The horn loaded sub built into the floor is so righteous. Why does it have to be ruined by that ridiculous bullshit 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
My friend was telling me about his new NAD C370 integrated amp and linked me to a review, in which this $1500 AC power cord was mentioned. I was particularly amused by this paragraphJPS Labs posted:Low frequency bass definition will improve dramatically with an incredible rolling of bass drum most systems cannot reproduce (for a visual on available bass information the microphone will pick up, click here to see a video), and bass guitar and piano strings will resonate with a full set of overtones intact. Mid and high frequency air and resolution will be at their peak of perfection. Vocals will sound so very real, full and rich, with no hint of brightness or forwardness, in proper perspective. All instruments will be well focused and well rounded while keeping their original harmonic structure intact, just as if they are all right there with you in the room. It becomes increasingly important with an AC cord such as this that the rest of your systems' cables and AC cords are truthful to the source, not tayloring the sound. If you are already using JPS cables, life will be good. Fuller, richer, more focused, rounder, so very real! If only I could get my house rewired with this. At $750/m I think it is a value as far as audiophile upgrades go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
I've been looking for some AV stores around Sydney and happened across this place. http://www.eastwoodhifi.com.au Now it seemed pretty normal until I noticed the guy who owns the place does these little comments every day. http://www.eastwoodhifi.com.au/steves_comments.html I am now definitely shopping here just because he seems to be one of the rare type of people in retail. Will sell you straight, no pointless upsell and will gladly send you to a different retailer if he doesn't have what you need. Rubbishes all claims about $300 cables and particularly calls people out on their bullshit. Hates Bose. Sniffs out the bullshit a lot and tells people to gently caress off even if it costs him a sale. Yet from all the reviews of the place and him he actually comes across as being immensely helpful and a nice person. As long as you're not a tool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 13:56
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Now it seemed pretty normal until I noticed the guy who owns the place does these little comments every day. That is a very amusing read, that guy is brilliant. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
Kung-Fu Jesus posted:The people who buy these stupid power cables also buy stupid power conditioners designed specifically for stupid audiophile equipment. The idea is to preserve the stupid-conditioned energy in its perfectly stupid state to their stupid equipment. Are there any guys out there who have gone next-level on the power cable thing and built up $20,000 systems consisting of a deep cycle marine battery and a ~~~TRUE SINE WAVE~~~ inverter? I mean, only proles use the filthy unfiltered public power grid. Yes, filtering exists, but with that quality input, its like running raw sewage through a Brita filter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 11:14
|
|
|
For the truest lowest level of background noise I only listen to my system while in orbit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 12:11
|
|
|
How do you deal with the cosmic background radiation, that the atmosphere isn't filtering anymore?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 12:33
|
|
|
You should only listen to things at night to reduce sun based neutrino noise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 15:40
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:How do you deal with the cosmic background radiation, that the atmosphere isn't filtering anymore? A space station built entirely out of Lessloss Black Body bricks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
You mean none of you constructed your listening rooms at a legrange point? Amateurs 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
Needle tracking in zero gravity requires too much force and I don't want to burn up my 180 gram records.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
To really isolate my listening environment from noise, I need my own planet. I'm still undecided about moving my stuff to a new planet vs moving everyone else off this one. It will depend which way my psychotic break goes, when the time comes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
qirex posted:Needle tracking in zero gravity requires too much force and I don't want to burn up my 180 gram records. Just read it with a laser.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
The photons still might dent the vinyl molecules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
timb posted:Just read it with a laser.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
qirex posted:That sounds suspiciously... digital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Sagacity posted:It's a laser built from vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes? Ha! My tubes are filled with nitrogen. Yeah, you laugh now...
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:Vacuum tubes? Nitrogen? What kind of peasant audio equipment have you got, everyone knows only the purest of noble gases are transparent enough for audio. I use Neon as it provides a warmer sound and glow 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
There was some discussion about DACs and bits a couple pages ago, and how audiophiles were arguing the whole "bits AREN'T bits, digital audio is a SNAPSHOT blah blah". This is ignoring some pretty fundamental mathematical proof as to how DACs, digital sampling, and discrete signals work in general. You have some arbitrary continuous (analog) signal. Perform the fourier transform on it, and observe it in the frequency domain. Sample it at a sufficient sampling rate (the Nyquist rate, 2x the highest frequency), and you end up with the discrete-time representation of the same signal. Now, audiophiles would lead you to believe that because you're not sampling THE ENTIRE WAVEFORM, there is information lost. Truth is, there isn't. If you take the discrete-time fourier transform of the equivalent digital signal, and it was sampled at a sufficient rate to prevent aliasing, you will find that the signal contains THE EXACT SAME FREQUENCY INFORMATION (albiet, mirrored at every multiple of the sampling frequency, which is why the sampling rate needs to be 2x the highest frequency). The two signals in their respective frequency domains are identical. This is fundamental to signal processing and in fact every digitally sampled thing ever. ...but did you know that fourier transforms color your waveform? For the low price of $4500, you can now purchase the FourierPRO-X+, and never again will you deal with imperfect transformations. For $1500, the SOUNDSTAGE-XTRANSFORM displays in real time your audio in the Soundstage domain. Never again wonder if your system is properly spacing instruments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
EE major specializing in signal processing here You're mostly right however I should point out two things: 1. There's no such thing as "a sufficient rate to prevent aliasing" because any given analog signal has frequency content all the way up the spectrum... sure most of the stuff way up there is really quiet and just noise anyway, but there's something there. 2. Actual 100% accurate reproduction requires an ideal low-pass filter, which doesn't exist. Also you're leaving out quantization, which is the other half of the equation when it comes to digital signals. Again, I'm not saying the difference is significant however it is there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:1. There's no such thing as "a sufficient rate to prevent aliasing" because any given analog signal has frequency content all the way up the spectrum... sure most of the stuff way up there is really quiet and just noise anyway, but there's something there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 01:28
|
|