Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re: Dither it up
2015/12/10 05:29:53
(permalink)
kevinwal
fret_man
Responses 8 and 15 basically contradict each other. I wonder which is correct?
How so? I don't see that they are contradictory in any way.
I would agree regarding the recommended usage for pow-r 1 and pow-r 2, but with pow-r 3, you couldn't get a bigger discrepancy regarding intended use: Pragi says - Pow 3 for metall, EDM,Hard Techno aso mikedocy says - pow-r 3 is made for wide dynamic range classical music Like I said, I use pow-r3 regardless of source material as this produces the most transparent result. I once did a test of all the different algorithms using the longest reverb patch I could find, recorded a very loud snare crack and exported the results of each. Loading them up one at a time and listening as loud as possible makes for some interesting listening, especially the tail/decay Try it - should only take 20 minutes of anyone's time, then you can choose which type to use based on your own findings.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
Pragi
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1173
- Joined: 2010/09/19 11:46:59
- Location: Village of the sun
- Status: offline
Re: Dither it up
2015/12/10 05:47:53
(permalink)
kevinwal
fret_man
Responses 8 and 15 basically contradict each other. I wonder which is correct?
How so? I don't see that they are contradictory in any way.
+ 1
|
Pragi
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1173
- Joined: 2010/09/19 11:46:59
- Location: Village of the sun
- Status: offline
Re: Dither it up
2015/12/10 06:05:22
(permalink)
Bristol_Jonesey
kevinwal
fret_man
Responses 8 and 15 basically contradict each other. I wonder which is correct?
How so? I don't see that they are contradictory in any way.
I would agree regarding the recommended usage for pow-r 1 and pow-r 2, but with pow-r 3, you couldn't get a bigger discrepancy regarding intended use:
Pragi says - Pow 3 for metall, EDM,Hard Techno aso
mikedocy says - pow-r 3 is made for wide dynamic range classical music
Like I said, I use pow-r3 regardless of source material as this produces the most transparent result.
I once did a test of all the different algorithms using the longest reverb patch I could find, recorded a very loud snare crack and exported the results of each.
Loading them up one at a time and listening as loud as possible makes for some interesting listening, especially the tail/decay
Try it - should only take 20 minutes of anyone's time, then you can choose which type to use based on your own findings.
Hello Jonesey, if in your eyes (better ears,hehe ) the pow 3 algorythm sounds best on all source material -there is no matter why you should not use this algo. For me it works best the way I wrote. I tested all the different algorithms and found out, that the different pow algorithms are basic principles which give simply more effective selection and possibilities, but again, for me.
post edited by Pragi - 2015/12/10 06:19:28
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re: Dither it up
2015/12/10 13:59:10
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby rabeach 2015/12/10 14:17:16
Bristol_Jonesey
I once did a test of all the different algorithms using the longest reverb patch I could find, recorded a very loud snare crack and exported the results of each.
Loading them up one at a time and listening as loud as possible makes for some interesting listening, especially the tail/decay
Try it - should only take 20 minutes of anyone's time, then you can choose which type to use based on your own findings.
Something to keep in mind here: Advanced noise shaping algorithms are typically based in large part on equal loudness contours in the range of ATH (absolute threshold of hearing) to 15 phon, because this is the expected level of the noise at typical playback levels. If one dramatically cranks up the volume of a low level signal to make things audible, then one is actually listening at a much higher phon level and the ear's sensitivity is much different, making any conclusions invalid. If someone wanted to create dither + noise shaping that would work better at a 40 phon listening level, then they would base their noise shaping curve on 40 phon and not ATH or 15 phon and it might impress people who audition at artificially high levels, but it would be inferior under real world conditions. IOW, it doesn't make any sense to audition dither + noise shaping at dramatically louder listening levels because the noise shaping curves are deliberately calibrated to work best at real-world listening levels and the whole point of using equal loudness contours to create the noise shaping curve is that the ear hears differently at different listening levels.
 In order, then, to discover the limit of deepest tones, it is necessary not only to produce very violent agitations in the air but to give these the form of simple pendular vibrations. - Hermann von Helmholtz, predicting the role of the electric bassist in 1877.
|
fret_man
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 312
- Joined: 2009/05/14 23:57:37
- Status: offline
Re: Dither it up
2015/12/10 15:12:19
(permalink)
My point was that post #8 claimed pwr-1 and pwr-2 were good for classical while post #15 suggested pwr-3 was good for classical. I'm not claiming right/wrong here, just trying to get some clarification and learn something. For my use it probably won't make much difference.
|
kevinwal
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1066
- Joined: 2007/07/27 19:07:43
- Location: Rogers, AR
- Status: offline
Re: Dither it up
2015/12/10 15:25:22
(permalink)
fret_man
My point was that post #8 claimed pwr-1 and pwr-2 were good for classical while post #15 suggested pwr-3 was good for classical. I'm not claiming right/wrong here, just trying to get some clarification and learn something. For my use it probably won't make much difference.
Oops, I misread my post as post #15, it's actually #16 so I will officially withdraw the inquiry once I find the appropriate forms. Damn paperwork.
Kevin Walsh My latest tunes are at Reverbnation, please give a listen! EVGA X58 Classified III, 24GB Kingston RAM, i7/970 6 core256GB SSD, 2TB HDWindows 10 Build 10586, Sonar Platinum, 2016.03MOTU 8Pre Interface
|
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18001
- Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
- Status: offline
Re: Dither it up
2015/12/10 15:36:01
(permalink)
fret_man
My point was that post #8 claimed pwr-1 and pwr-2 were good for classical while post #15 suggested pwr-3 was good for classical. I'm not claiming right/wrong here, just trying to get some clarification and learn something. For my use it probably won't make much difference.
To me... the best bet if it REALLY matters (like a commercial release or some such) is to let a proper mastering engineer make that decision. By that I mean work in your usual working bit depth/samplerate (eg 24bit/48khz or 24bit/96khz or whatever) then send your export... without dithering/conversion to the mastering engineer. They'll know what to do (and if they don't they aren't qualified for the job). For those of us just farting away at home making demos or sharing with our buds... might as well just use the Pwr Dither settings unless you hear a noticeable difference/problem that bugs you. Actually since all the online music players and computer players (like WMP) can all accept/playback 24bit files anyway it doesn't even matter. It seems (AFAICT) that it only needs to really happen if you are burning a CD to be played on an actual physical CD player... and who uses those things anymore. I haven't owned or even touched one for YEARS! lol
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re: Dither it up
2015/12/10 17:17:22
(permalink)
drewfx1
Bristol_Jonesey
I once did a test of all the different algorithms using the longest reverb patch I could find, recorded a very loud snare crack and exported the results of each.
Loading them up one at a time and listening as loud as possible makes for some interesting listening, especially the tail/decay
Try it - should only take 20 minutes of anyone's time, then you can choose which type to use based on your own findings.
Something to keep in mind here:
Advanced noise shaping algorithms are typically based in large part on equal loudness contours in the range of ATH (absolute threshold of hearing) to 15 phon, because this is the expected level of the noise at typical playback levels.
If one dramatically cranks up the volume of a low level signal to make things audible, then one is actually listening at a much higher phon level and the ear's sensitivity is much different, making any conclusions invalid. If someone wanted to create dither + noise shaping that would work better at a 40 phon listening level, then they would base their noise shaping curve on 40 phon and not ATH or 15 phon and it might impress people who audition at artificially high levels, but it would be inferior under real world conditions.
IOW, it doesn't make any sense to audition dither + noise shaping at dramatically louder listening levels because the noise shaping curves are deliberately calibrated to work best at real-world listening levels and the whole point of using equal loudness contours to create the noise shaping curve is that the ear hears differently at different listening levels.
Yes, point taken Drew. One mitigating factor is something I didn't mention in my first post and that was, I set it up so I was only listening to the reverb tail itself and cranked the volume by using an identical envelope on all the test tracks I order to really listen to what was going on. The volume in the room while performing these tests never exceeded 78dB and even with the envelopes, always faded into silence.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
Wouter Schijns
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 259
- Joined: 2013/01/30 10:29:18
- Status: offline
Re: Dither it up
2015/12/12 19:49:29
(permalink)
|