Showing posts with label digital audio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital audio. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

The Loudness Wars: The Debate Continues

I have commented before on the modern propensity to over-compress recordings, something which I am guilty of as well. My friend @mattsearles posted this on Twitter yesterday. I haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast yet, but the written post summarizes a discussion with some notable producers and mixing engineers, in which they share their thoughts on this phenomenon.



Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: The Loudness Wars: The Debate ContinuesAdd To Yahoo

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Another Multitrack Audio Format - iKlax

Somebody commented on my earlier post, so I checked it out, and it looks interesting. iKlax is a music-based social network which allows artists to offer their music in a multitrack format, and listeners can do their own remixes. Interesting concept, and it's free to join:

iKlaxmusic.com - HOME - Download multitrack and interactive music
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: Another Multitrack Audio Format - iKlaxAdd To Yahoo

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Musicians Survey

If you have a moment, pop over to hypebot and take this survey. It's very short, and should only take several minutes. I'm interested to see what comes of it:

hypebot: A Short Survey For Musicians
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: Musicians SurveyAdd To Yahoo

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Oldest Recording of Music Played by a Computer

From BBC News (article includes an audio link):

BBC NEWS | Technology | 'Oldest' computer music unveiled
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: Oldest Recording of Music Played by a ComputerAdd To Yahoo

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

A New Audio File Format

Korean engineers have developed a new digital music format with a file extension of MT9. The product name is "Music 2.0," and it seems to be a multi-channel format. According to what little info I can find, the interface will allow the listener to separately control the volume of guitars, drums, vocals, bass, and other mix elements. This leads me to believe the audio files will be imbedded with "stems" of each mix element, although I have been unable to confirm that assumption. It is expected that the format will be formally adopted at the upcoming international MPEG conference this year. The company which developed it is Audizen, and I encourage anyone who can read Korean to visit the site and find out more!

Here are also three articles I found on the subject:

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/05/25/music-20-engineers-unveil-mt9-format

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/05/133_24597.html

http://english.etnews.co.kr/news/detail.html?id=200805230009
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: A New Audio File FormatAdd To Yahoo

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Remix a new Radiohead track

A Twitter friend pointed out the following site to me:

Radiohead/ Remix/ Nude


If you do a remix and enter the contest, let us know so we can vote for you!
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: Remix a new Radiohead trackAdd To Yahoo

Monday, March 24, 2008

Replaced By Robots

As I was randomly shuffling through the lame music on commercial radio today, I was alarmed at the increasing use of blatant auto-tune. Then, something occurred to me: Maybe the major labels are trying to desensitize the public so that they will be able to eventually replace human singers with robots! Just think how much they will be able to increase their profits if they don't have to pay artists.

Then, of course, the final step will be to eliminate the songwriters. I'm sure some programmers are at this very moment working on applications that will examine current hits and "compose" similar music. It's too bad there are so many sheeple out there who will probably listen to it!
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: Replaced By RobotsAdd To Yahoo

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

First Album Recorded on an iPod

Yes, you heard me correctly! Folk artist Jimmy Camp recorded a 10-song CD using only an iPod, with no overdubs. It's sort of a one-man band type of recording, with acoustic guitar, harmonica, vocals, and a few percussion instruments. He recorded it using a live mixer, a couple of SM58's, and one of those $70 Belkin adapters on his iPod.

Here's someone using modern technology (albeit very lo-fi) to record an album like they used to do in the early analog days. You can listen to the tracks and even see a brief documentary on the process at his website: http://jimmycamp.com.
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: First Album Recorded on an iPodAdd To Yahoo

Friday, January 26, 2007

New Free Soundhack Plugins!

Many of my friends and students have heard me rave about Soundhack for years. Well, they just released a free cross-platform bundle of 5 plugins, in VST/RTAS/AU formats. The plugins include a compressor/expander, several noise/distortion plugins, a mid-side encoder/decoder, and a "phasescope." Did I mention they are free? You can get them right here!

You can also download the Soundhack program for free, but it only runs on a Mac. If you are a Mac user, as well as an audio geek, you must download this app! The UI is text-based, and manipulating sounds is often a trial-and-error process, but it's well worth it. I created many of the sounds I used in my electronic project using Soundhack!

You might even want to check out their "Spectral Shapers" plugins. They cost money, but you can use it in demo mode for 14 days. I haven't tried it, but it looks like it does some of the things Soundhack does, but with an easier-to-use interface, and the ability to use it within your host DAW! There is an endorsement by Trent Reznor on the website, so that's good enough for me!
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: New Free Soundhack Plugins!Add To Yahoo

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

DAW Wars

Recently, I have heard quite a bit of debate and questions concerning DAW's (Digital Audio Workstations.) Of course, this debate has been going on for many years, as long as there have been DAW's. The most common question I have heard is: Which software/hardware combination should I buy? Of course, the contenders are Pro Tools, Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar, Logic Audio, and Digital Performer. Pro Tools has proprietary hardware, while the other platforms will work with a variety of hardware interfaces.

I'm going to weigh in on this, and I think I may end up surprising some people. I couldn't say this a few years ago, but today I can safely state that they are all the same! OK, so they aren't exactly the same, but each application has a similar set of features. Some are stronger in certain areas, of course. For instance, Cubase and Logic have superior MIDI features to Pro Tools, although Pro Tools has been catching up in recent years. In addition, each program has a slightly different user interface. However, by and large, all of these applications are strong contenders, capable of allowing the user to produce professional-quality recordings.

Here are a few things to think about when considering purchasing a DAW:
  1. Portability - i.e., will you be taking your projects to other studios at times? If so, you should use the most compatible DAW. According to the word on the street, most professional studios still use Pro Tools, but Sonar, Cubase and even Logic have a significant piece of the market.
  2. Operating System - If you use a Mac, you can't use Sonar, and Windows users can't use Logic or Digital Performer. I am also of the opinion that Pro Tools and Digital Performer will be more intuitive to longtime Mac users, whereas Cubase and Sonar might feel more comfortable to Windows users.
  3. What are you recording? If you are using mostly MIDI, you might prefer Cubase, Logic or Digital Performer. If you are recording live instruments and don't use MIDI, Pro Tools, Sonar or Nuendo might be more appealing.
  4. Budget - This is where I believe Pro Tools suffers. Their low-budget options are severely limited, in terms of track counts, features, and plug-ins, especially when compared to all of the other programs I've mentioned. There is also a significant price jump when migrating from the "consumer" Pro Tools platform to the "pro" versions. This is largely due to the proprietary hardware requirements.
  5. Stick with what you are used to - A friend was recently considering switching from Sonar on Windows to Pro Tools on the Mac, largely because a music store employee told him he needed to. After he described his system to me, it was clear to me that he could do everything he needed to do with his current system. He had never really used Pro Tools anyway, and he felt very comfortable with Sonar, so there was no need to switch.
I really believe item number 5 is probably the most important. I recently bought my own home DAW system, since I will be leaving my job soon and will no longer have access to the studio facilities. I briefly considered switching to Logic Audio, because I was impressed by the feature set, and felt like I would get a better "bang for my buck!" However, I have been using Pro Tools for more than 10 years, and it just doesn't make sense for me to switch at this time.

The first Pro Tools system I worked on was a TDM Mix system with a maximum track count of 24 mono tracks and only the basic Digidesign plug-ins, and I was still able to produce some great recordings. I can certainly make do with 48 stereo tracks, numerous plug-ins, and sample rates up to 96k!
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: DAW WarsAdd To Yahoo

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

A Brief Explanation of Bit Rate and Dither

A friend of mine who uses Pro Tools recently asked me about bit rate. This subject, and especially the related concept of dither, is often difficult for my students to comprehend. The following is adapted from my email reply to my friend. I specifically discuss Pro Tools, but it applies to any DAW program.

Of course, you cannot discuss bit rate without mentioning something about sample rate. When you record to analog tape, you are recording a continuous representation of a waveform. That's the nature of analog. However, it is not the nature of PCM digital audio. At a sample rate of 44.1k, you are taking 44,100 individual snapshots of the waveform every second (44,100 samples per second.) This is why higher sample rates are better, because you get a better representation of the waveform. Your sample rate also limits the range of frequencies you can reproduce, but that is another discussion entirely.

Now, when you talk about bit rate, you are talking about the size of each sample. Digital audio is encoded in binary code, which is a series of one's and zero's. So, the bit rate determines how many ones or zeros each sample will have. At 16 bits, each sample is represented by 16 ones or zeros. At 24 bits, then, you have 8 more ones or zeros per sample. As you can probably imagine, the amount of combinations of ones and zeros is greatly increased at 24 bits. Thus, you get a more accurate representation of the sample. You have increased resolution, which ultimately means greater fidelity.

This increased resolution is often more noticeable when it comes to changes in dynamics. For instance, at 16 bits, a fadeout might at some point seem to just fall off a cliff! In other words, you might hear a nice, smooth fade for a while, but then suddenly the signal is gone. At 24 bits, however, the fade might sound infinitely better. In fact, many engineers feel there is a drastic difference in audio quality between 24 bits and 16 bits. You may have correctly inferred from what I said earlier that higher sample rates mean larger frequency range. Similarly, higher bit rates mean larger dynamic range. Therefore, musical styles with greater dynamic range, such as jazz and classical, benefit from higher bit rates. With Rock music, on the other hand, which is often heavily compressed anyway, it may not matter as much.

Now, back to dither. Even though dither does add a small amount of noise to the signal, there is a second algorithm called noise shaping, in which the dither noise is re-EQ'd out of the audible range. However, it is more important to understand the true purpose of dither. When you reduce the bit rate from 24 to 16, you are reducing the resolution of each sample by 1/3, basically truncating the last 8 bits off of each sample. This can reduce the dynamic range, and generally degrade the sound quality. When you add dither, it does something akin to rounding off the last few bits to make up for the 8 bits you are losing. In other words, it is designed to allow you to preserve at least some of the dynamic range and overall sound quality when you reduce the bit rate.

The best way to A/B between a dithered and undithered mix would be to listen to a fade-out. The dithered version should sound smoother.

Of course, these differences are, admittedly, rather subtle, and I do know a few engineers who think it's all hogwash. The ideal solution to this problem is a 24-bit digital audio standard, hopefully at a higher sample rate as well. I believe this will happen very soon.

A few years ago, I had a friend who would do all of his sessions at 16 bits, reasoning that it would keep him from having to worry about bit-rate reduction and dither. I actually bought into this for a while, and was doing the same thing. Then one day I read that Pro Tools does all of it's processing in 24 bits. This means that whenever I was using a plug-in or doing a bounce, even a gain change with a fader, it would increase the bit rate to 24, then go back down to 16. So, obviously, there was absolutely no advantage (and, actually, a big disadvantage) to doing things that way.

Then, as I studied digital audio even more I found out that every audio calculation you do, even in the 24 bit range, briefly adds bits to the end of each sample, then cuts them back off to return to your session bit rate. (I had taken recording classes back in the analog days, so I never learned this until I started teaching it.) That's why, for instance, you can set Pro Tools to use dither for audiosuite plug-ins. The consensus among audio engineers, thankfully, is that, even though there is a big difference in sound quality between 16 and 24 bits, once you get above 24 bits, the differences are much less severe, so these recalculations do not adversely affect the sound quality.

One other thing to remember about dither: Since it does add some noise to the signal, you usually don't want to do it more than once. That's why it should be the very last thing you do while you are performing a bit-rate reduction (such as a bounce to disk operation.)

When mixing an album, it’s best to stay in the 24-bit realm, even when you bounce down to stereo mixes. Then, you should take your 24 bit stereo bounces back into your DAW or mastering program, and apply EQ, multiband compression, limiting, etc. in order to get consistent levels and EQ between each song. Finally, insert dither on the master fader and bounce each song to a 16-bit file. In other words, if you are working on an album or EP project that will be mixed and mastered, you should stay at 24 bits all the way through to the end of the mastering phase.
Add To Del.icio.us Digg This Add To Facebook I'm reading: A Brief Explanation of Bit Rate and DitherAdd To Yahoo