|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 5, 2013 16:13:23 GMT -6
Right, that the "because it's red" in my analogy. I don't doubt that he's hearing something he likes better in a completely new audio engine, dsp algorithms, and virtual instruments revisions. We're agree it is not likely because the cup is red.
That's why I find these types of tech discussions confusing and puts people at odds...somewhat artificially. The coffee DID taste better from the red cup...and so the people who have a great tasting red cup** feel like they're being told they're imagining it tastes better...which, while IS one valid possibility, starts with the most dismissive explanation, which stops them from listening.
The other confusion is because listening perception and taste perception are situational and unique to a person's taste buds/nose and ear to brain networks. Whereas, the disproof tends to be on the side of proving the coffee Is chemically the same sitting in both cups--which makes an assumption that the same coffee will taste the same because it's chemically the same. Which isn't the same as being perceived as tasting different...which is a multi factor experience of said chemically similar/same coffee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 18:31:50 GMT -6
so, Ethan, you don't want to come over and help me hang some panels, then?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Nov 5, 2013 19:18:05 GMT -6
so, Ethan, you don't want to come over and help me hang some panels, then? he's ignoring you bro, you gonna put up with that?? 8) |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 6, 2013 8:14:59 GMT -6
Forgive my simplifying generalization here, but people have different amounts of taste buds, think of it as basic, say... 500 taste buds, then 5,000, call them average tasters, and then 50,000, call those people super tasters. There are not in between numbers, you're either an A, B, or C taster. So even if the science says it should taste the same, there are outside factors at play as well. So, you'd have to know the person tasting the coffee's tasting ability before even beginning to figure out if the coffee is any different in a red cup.
As I said in the beginning, "something" sounds a little better to me in 64 bits, emphasis on little. Now that little difference might not stay so little if one is exposed to that small difference over long periods of time, say... six hours of mixing, not a half hour of A-B listening tests. You guys can do math all day, it's interesting to learn about, but doesn't matter very much to me personally. The difference could be something other than that, it could be something to do with the upgraded plug-ins with plugs running at 64, hell, maybe the plug designers tweaked something on the way to 64, there are probably other things over my head I'm unaware of, but the result to me, is my Logic X 64 bit DAW sounds a little cleaner, and is definitely a little easier to tolerate over long periods of time. That 'test" can only happen over weeks and months of consistent use, and being aware of any changes in habits, like being able to mix a little longer.
How I would describe what I've noticed is a "blacker background", I strain a little less to hear detail, and the final mix is a little less harsh. Again, it may have nothing to do with the math, and might be simply upgraded plug-ins. But in the real world, not our theoretical discussions, as Tony said previously, we all will have to move on up to keep up with those changes anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Nov 6, 2013 8:52:46 GMT -6
Forgive my simplifying generalization here, but people have different amounts of taste buds, think of it as basic, say... 500 taste buds, then 5,000, call them average tasters, and then 50,000, call those people super tasters. There are not in between numbers, you're either an A, B, or C taster. So even if the science says it should taste the same, there are outside factors at play as well. So, you'd have to know the person tasting the coffee's tasting ability before even beginning to figure out if the coffee is any different in a red cup. Except that in hearing, stereocillia numbers correlate to bandwidth and not "quality" of hearing. The only factors relating to that are experience - i.e, what to listen for and neural density which relates to how quickly people can process information. Both work off the idea of simply having templates to which you relate new data and your brain trying to predict what's coming next and comparing it to what actually comes next to build a model as quickly as possible. When testing, we do categorize by demographic - age, experience, gender, cultural background, disabilities or mental illness. I don't want to be repeatedly coming down on you for broad statements backed with flawed analogies but, well, here we are. Unfortunately when making a claim that counters conventional scientific understanding, the burden of proof lies on the claim maker. That is, you'd need to create a test or experiment that highlights the differences outside of analogous thought. So while it's great that this has improved your workflow, and I'm comfortable with that, I can't buy it and furthermore I don't think you can sell it. No skeptic could be satisfied with the argument presented thus far. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 6, 2013 9:23:20 GMT -6
All I've said is that Logic in 64 bits sounds a little better to me, that's all. My "analogy" regarding tasting wasn't flawed, it wasn't an analogy, it's a fact about human anatomy, my numbers could be off though, I'm coming from memory of an article on the front page of the NY Times science page years ago. My point was that there are other factors involved when comparing 64 bits DAWS and 32 bit besides the math, which is obvious. I'm not trying to sell anything, You prefer to stay with 32 bit DAWS, fine by me. I do encourage friends to switch though, and cowboy's a friend.
Whenever I get questioned regarding my impression of something about audio, a complete response is impractical, it would take a dozen pages to give someone a clue as to what my experience has been. So what I might notice may not necessarily be noticeable by many or most folks, but it doesn't mean it's not there.
I stand by my statement. Logic X sounds better than Logic 9 did. Is it the 64 bit change, I wouldn't know. I think it's a fair assumption it has something to do with it, but I'm perfectly willing to believe it may not, maybe it's the way the plugs interact now, or the computer working better with more RAM, whatever. My advice to anyone asking is yes, 64 bits sounds better, it might not be the bits making the difference, but whatever it is, bumping up is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Nov 6, 2013 10:27:48 GMT -6
All I've said is that Logic in 64 bits sounds a little better to me, that's all. My "analogy" regarding tasting wasn't flawed, it wasn't an analogy, it's a fact about human anatomy, my numbers could be off though, I'm coming from memory of an article on the front page of the NY Times science page years ago. My point was that there are other factors involved when comparing 64 bits DAWS and 32 bit besides the math, which is obvious. I'm not trying to sell anything, You prefer to stay with 32 bit DAWS, fine by me. I do encourage friends to switch though, and cowboy's a friend. Whenever I get questioned regarding my impression of something about audio, a complete response is impractical, it would take a dozen pages to give someone a clue as to what my experience has been. So what I might notice may not necessarily be noticeable by many or most folks, but it doesn't mean it's not there. I stand by my statement. Logic X sounds better than Logic 9 did. Is it the 64 bit change, I wouldn't know. I think it's a fair assumption it has something to do with it, but I'm perfectly willing to believe it may not, maybe it's the way the plugs interact now, or the computer working better with more RAM, whatever. My advice to anyone asking is yes, 64 bits sounds better, it might not be the bits making the difference, but whatever it is, bumping up is a good thing. A physiological fact applied to something not directly related is analogous. For instance Bucket Brigade Delays are analogous, but they describe a physically real thing - bucket brigades were a means of carrying discrete quantities of water over a distance. That's not the whole story as to how they work, but it's a good aid for the thinker. I'm not saying you're selling anything physical, it's a metaphor. As for "More than the math", I haven't described the math and nor has anybody else besides the basics. We're not and should not be talking about your experience because that could be anything from a vision of Christ to increased hearing, a confidence boost or an existential crisis. Those are all things in your brain and don't describe any physical or mechanical change that translates into reality. I'm not saying sticking to 32 is the right choice either. For those with a lot of RAM using large Kontact libraries or the AV guys the performance improvements might be well worth it. I'm just saying that if A = B then you cannot say B < A. |
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Nov 6, 2013 10:36:34 GMT -6
I waited as patiently as I could for UAD to finally be 64-bit, then I immediately went from Windows XP (32) to Win 7 (64). I don't run any 32-bit plugins, and my system running Cubase 7 with an RME UFX is just absolutely solid so far. XP (32) was great, but I started running into problems as I started using more memory-intensive virtual instruments. For me, 64-bit is the way to go. I can most definitely hear differences, especially the difference between hearing music and hearing Cubase grind to a halt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 10:46:42 GMT -6
Hm.
OK, tasting abilities, hehe, that is a small smart knock, but well....nobody should be offended by that....
Again, what qualifies for good tasting abilities? There are people claiming to be wine experts that can not tell a Barolo from a Chianti or Bordeaux and passionate coffee drinkers that don't like my gualtemala private coffee.
And on a bad day, people that i think have exceptionally good ears and are great producers or sound engineers, claim they hardly can work because they don't really trust their ears.
HearÃng is a much more suggestible perception than tasting coffee. If one asks the professional coffee tasters...
So what would qualify someone as a pro quality listener?
Experience? Musical and acoustical knowledge? Psychic stability? (Well, despite this has to do with the stability of reliable perception, we all know this is not a valid requirement for professional success always, right? :-D)
While we all might agree that these factors have huge positive impact on listening, it is hard to impossible to set up fact based rules for that and thus it remains highly subjective if you trust in someones "tasting abilities"...
That's the good thing on the pure technical aspects of audio engineering - they do not have to be believed, they are not a matter of subjective perception. They can be measured or calculated within defined limits of validity.
Regarding the changes of DAWs between versions:
The marketing guys all claim their DAW sounds better due to 64bit. Of course they do not give a valid proof, because there isn't one. If they could, they would do. For sure.
AND - they do work on their algorithms to meet the expectations that the new version sounds better and is somehow on par to the competitors...workflow changes alone doesn't cut it to sell an update.
When e.g. Cakewalk marketed the 64bit thing they updated with their analog style sounding plugins in 64 bit (mostly) i believe were Kjaerhus audio technology. And yes. It sounds better. Subjectively. And one of the flagships, the Boost11 master limiter really sounded very good to me. But guess what - it does/did not really what it is made for, it is a lousy brickwall limiter...needed a while until i noticed that...
The developers mostly do not let you take a look under their hood. Not about the details. They noticed possibilities to increase fidelity, they fix them, and you will never be told what they really did. And the new version is always the best sounding they ever did...
I jumped onto "64bit sounds better" wagon when Cakewalk introduced it as the first DAW of all - some time later i found out many plugs were still 32 bit. And noticed it was impossible for me to tell, which ones. Until analyzing them technically. Well, myth busted for me, marketing babble got me once more, without me noticing it right away. Nothing to be ashamed of. So what? It sounded better either way....
Best regards,
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 6, 2013 11:42:49 GMT -6
I think that the number of taste buds a person has IS directly related to their ability to judge the taste of something. More taste buds equals ability to taste more flavor, nuances, etc. which can make someone a "better" taster. It relates to our conversation in that some people hear better than others, obviously, and for many possible reasons, but I didn't think of it as an analogy, I could be wrong.
Smallbutfine, I think you're touching on what I was thinking about, as the 64 bit transition was being made, there may have been some tweaks made behind the scenes that I'm noticing as "sounds better". As I said before it may not be because of the 32 bits or 64 bits, but for whatever reason, Logic X sounds better to me than Logic 9 did. I've said all along, that's enough reason to switch to 64 bits anyway.
Ethan had spoken of no discernible audio difference between 64 bit and 32, but Svart spoke of truncation using 32 bits bits, "So 64 bit systems and 64 bit plug ins allow the math results to be longer without being cut apart and therefore keeping fidelity through the system". Is he wrong? If he's right, 64 bits could sound better if they changed the math. So to me, it really doesn't matter if in sheer mathematical terms we can't hear a difference between 64 bit and 32 bit processing, we can hear differences because of plug in algorithm changes, so for me 64 bits is better, and I recommend it.
It's been fun, but the conversation's becoming a little too pedantic for my "tastes", back to music making now...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 12:51:08 GMT -6
so, Ethan, you don't want to come over and help me hang some panels, then? Where do you live? And do you have any single malt Scotch?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 12:58:06 GMT -6
I don't want to be repeatedly coming down on you for broad statements backed with flawed analogies but, well, here we are. Better you than me, I get enough hate (not so here, but generally) for explaining the science. Again, all I'm addressing is using 64-bit math within the DAW engine. The benefits of 64-bit for code are well known and impossible to refute. (Other than not being able to use older 32-bit plug-ins.) --Ethan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 13:03:27 GMT -6
on a bad day, people that i think have exceptionally good ears and are great producers or sound engineers, claim they hardly can work because they don't really trust their ears. Hearing is a much more suggestible perception than tasting coffee. Yes! I've made this point a few times already in this thread, but for some reason some people don't think it ever happens to them. The same applies to hi-fi products such as speaker wires and too-small acoustic products, where they're sold on the basis of "just listen" rather than blind test results or even basic measurements. I've posted this before, but it really needs to be read and understood: Perception - the Final Frontier--Ethan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 13:10:28 GMT -6
More taste buds equals ability to taste more flavor, nuances, etc. which can make someone a "better" taster. This is why I offered to drive all the way to your place, so you could be the expert listener rather than expect you to take my word for it. I know you said you're busy, but I'll mention that I have made this offer at least a dozen times over the years, and not one person has ever agreed to let me visit and test them blind. As I explained earlier, just because a difference can be measured doesn't mean it's audible. In the case of 32-bit versus 64-bit math, the difference can't be measured even with state of the art test gear. It has to be calculated, and the differences are 100+ dB below the noise floor. Think about that. Since it can be proven that the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit math is inaudible, the logical next step is to ask why people think they hear a difference even when none exists. That's the whole point of my Perception article linked above. --Ethan |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 6, 2013 13:49:28 GMT -6
Like I said, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, you're explaining why the math proves the difference is inaudible, and I'm saying what I hear may not have anything to do with the math and everything to do with other factors, but to me, 64 bit Logic X sounds better than 32. I'm not imagining it.
The truncation in 32 bits Svart spoke on page 1,
"In a thread a while ago I explained why higher bit depth is important. Truncation.
Truncation: limiting the number of digits to the right of the decimal point by discarding the least significant ones.
In layman's terms it means fitting 12 inches of numbers into a space made for 6 inches by cutting off 6 inches. In other words, you lose precision and ultimately fidelity. You might not hear it at first, but once you run your audio through a bunch of plugs and then through the DAW summing system, you'll start to hear it".
Is he wrong, or could that be partly responsible for the difference I've noticed?
To be clear, it's not some huge, obvious audio quality difference, it's subtle, but clear after I kept working in 64 bit. It's a little interesting, but I really don't care that much about the "why"..
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Nov 6, 2013 14:10:16 GMT -6
here's the vibe i get from some guys, "no improvements are audible", and by this standard, i should have stuck with windows 98, digi 001 and a 57. 8)
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Nov 6, 2013 16:08:06 GMT -6
Ethan had spoken of no discernible audio difference between 64 bit and 32, but Svart spoke of truncation using 32 bits bits, "So 64 bit systems and 64 bit plug ins allow the math results to be longer without being cut apart and therefore keeping fidelity through the system". Is he wrong? False dichotomy, yes more data is kept. But we're talking about how much data is relevant. To use one of those lovely analogies - what's the value in half a pixel? If Svart is saying he can here the truncation artifacts from 64 to 32 bits, he'd seriously need to justify that statement. But he's not here to defend himself, so I'm not going into it. Suffice to say, you can't. In fact you'd be disturbed how "insensitive" you might be to some of the technical differences that get discusses. I posted a test on the "Other Forum" where people had to compare 10 wavs, some of which had been compressed to 320 kbps and re-encoded to wav. Then the same but for 256 Kbps. I also have a third test as a control. So far the results show that the chances of hearing mp3 encoding at 320 kbps are coin toss odds - about 55%. At 256 it bumps up to about 65-70%, which is still lucky guess territory. This ranges from older professionals to young gigging types. One of these guys was firmly of the opinion that he heard mp3 "As a pressure pushing on his forehead" and would spam me with videos of that old crusty guy from Funktion 1 if I said contrary. Now, he's aware that he's been tricking himself. Now I feel you're being disingenuous. Again, you've yet to try and prove you're not imagining it but since you know that's the answer you end it by more or less saying "Yeah, whatever, who cares" after writing paragraphs. We're just discussing bit depth, there's no need to get passive aggressive about things. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 6, 2013 17:03:53 GMT -6
You're right jazznoise, I was writing on my phone while trying to handle a messy shrimp taco, so I might have been a little flippant, but really didn't mean it that way, sorry about that. All I've been saying is there's a more comfortable sound when I'm using 64 bit Logic than there was using 32, which reveals itself over time. I sometimes notice after 1/2 hour of working or sometimes over a very long session. It could be so many things, I'm really not qualified to say why. I'm not imagining that feeling though. I've had to go back into Logic 9 plenty of times, and when returning to Logic X, things are a little easier to hear clearly.
That why I say "64 bits is better", but it might have nothing to do with the actual difference between 32 and 64, it might simply be one plug I use has been upgraded behind the scenes. Whatever it is, I'm glad I made the jump. I'm still living without my $200 Slate FG-X plug in because they haven't finished re-writng their codes yet, but I'll suffer that for the improvements I'm experiencing in the upgraded interface itself and the slight improvement I've noticed in the sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Nov 6, 2013 17:32:03 GMT -6
You're right jazznoise, I was writing on my phone while trying to handle a messy shrimp taco, so I might have been a little flippant, but really didn't mean it that way, sorry about that. All I've been saying is there's a more comfortable sound when I'm using 64 bit Logic than there was using 32, which reveals itself over time. I sometimes notice after 1/2 hour of working or sometimes over a very long session. It could be so many things, I'm really not qualified to say why. I'm not imagining that feeling though. I've had to go back into Logic 9 plenty of times, and when returning to Logic X, things are a little easier to hear clearly. That why I say "64 bits is better", but it might have nothing to do with the actual difference between 32 and 64, it might simply be one plug I use has been upgraded behind the scenes. Whatever it is, I'm glad I made the jump. I'm still living without my $200 Slate FG-X plug in because they haven't finished re-writng their codes yet, but I'll suffer that for the improvements I'm experiencing in the upgraded interface itself and the slight improvement I've noticed in the sound. I'm not trying to chastise, but I can relate to the messiness of delicious food and the frustration it brings ( Why wont it get in my mouth!?). So apology unnecessary, but accepted. Last point would be that you may not feel educated in the field sufficiently to take it apart - I'm not a software engineer and I don't pretend to know their job - but measuring differences is quite within your grasp. Believe in yourself, believe in the ABX! |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 7, 2013 8:42:41 GMT -6
Hey jazz, the album pictured in your icon, were you involved with that band?
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Nov 7, 2013 10:21:31 GMT -6
Hey jazz, the album pictured in your icon, were you involved with that band? Hah! The original album is Big Black's Songs About Fucking. The first parody was an album called Songs About Fucking Steve Albini, and this is just a mimetic joke based on the cover of the first. I had nothing to do with any of them. Though if you've never listened to Songs About Fucking...well, make sure any kids are out of earshot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 13:15:58 GMT -6
Is he wrong, or could that be partly responsible for the difference I've noticed? Yes, he's wrong. For at least the third time now  our hearing perception and memory is not as good as we'd like to think. I've learned to stop telling people they're imaging things because it just makes them angry. But that usually is the answer. And as we discussed with wine glasses, just seeing a different UI or screen color can affect what we think we hear. Now, it is possible that something else changed. But whatever that is it can be easily measured and known. There is no mystery to audio, or unknown properties. Compared to the Hubble telescope, decoding DNA, and finding a cure for cancer, audio is very much a low tech science. --Ethan |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 7, 2013 13:45:03 GMT -6
Most older DAWs and plug-ins needed to be recoded to allow 64 bit memory addressing. As a result many were significantly improved although the rewrite rather than 64 bit addressing was the main reason for much of the improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 7, 2013 22:07:37 GMT -6
That's what I've been trying to say, the improvements I've noticed may have nothing to do with the change to 64 bits, but lead me to say 64 is better than 32, if only for the changes made to plug-ins. My huge Waves plug-in collection, UAD plugs, Ik Multimedia, Blue Cat, UVI, and Slate VBC, have all been switched to 64 bits. I know that Slate has re-written code and I'm sure others have done so too.
* I just received an email from Softube, announcing their upgrade to 64 bit AAX plugs. They tout improvements made to the plugs as well. So, I'm not imagining that my Logic X sounds a little better than 32 did, with every plug-in now running at 64 bits and with all the tweaks they've added along the way, it's quite likely that's what I'm noticing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Nov 10, 2013 9:32:39 GMT -6
Anyone using 32bit plugs in Cubase 7 64bit?
Jbridge?
|
|
our hearing perception and memory is not as good as we'd like to think. I've learned to stop telling people they're imaging things because it just makes them angry. But that usually is the answer. And as we discussed with wine glasses, just seeing a different UI or screen color can affect what we think we hear. Now, it is possible that something else changed. But whatever that is it can be easily measured and known. There is no mystery to audio, or unknown properties. Compared to the Hubble telescope, decoding DNA, and finding a cure for cancer, audio is very much a low tech science.
