Re-learning to mix ITB?

[O.G. Killa]

Originally Posted by masterduk

also, one does not record at higher dBfs simply to get up above the "noise". one does so to better utilize the available bit depth, for greater accuracy.

Oh god... not that again... It's amazing how some of these urban legends still persist year after year...

[Craig F]

O.G. just remember-


You can lead a horse to water but, it takes a pair of bricks to make him drink.

[theaero]

It does? o_O

[peppertree]

Originally Posted by DigiTechSupt

Actually, yes it would be. I don't know of ANY studio, production house, etc. that would hire someone that exhibited those kinds of work habits.

DTS, I really, really don't mean any condescension. Honestly. But when you work your way out of teaching, and tech support, and actually try to make it in this biz, and you get a few years under your belt, and you do everything right on project after project and nothing ends up working...

You realize, that there is one and only one important set of attributes in this business of art. And that is the intangibles.

Give me a kid who has all the intangibles galore and knows nothing about gain structure. Please! I will teach them 95% of gain structure within a week, without fail. Sure, they will spend the next 40 years of their life understanding the last 5% of gain structure. I don't dispute that. I have posted here before that gain structure is at least 50% of audio engineering.

But give me a kid who knows 100% of gain structure and has no intangibles? Give me a veteran who knows 100% of gain structure and has no intangibles. Same result: total mediocrity. Total missing of the point. Total lack of art. No concept. Nothing works.

The more things to trip over you can clear out of the way of a kid who is rich with intangibles but weak on technical skills the better. The hell with the tangibles. Find me a star and I'll cover their tangibles. There are a million desperate idiots out there who have the tangibles. They are permanently crippled with breath so bad it kills.

[C.Bayley]

i think you need to be more condescending.heres a thought maybe post a mix of something you've done ,so we can all bask in the glory of it.
unless of course its more a case of "total mediocrity".

[mano111]

+1

P.tree I'm all for freedom of speech but you are borderline trollin' here. You might want to start helping others rather than preaching to others about your own unique POV (which I'm not even sure what it is).

Oh. I got it. One post says gain structure isn't important - So in a FP system we can all just raise the gain forever with no consequences (not true as I mentioned in my previous reply)

the next post says

I have posted here before that gain structure is at least 50% of audio engineering

300 more posts a week couldn't change the fact that you didn't give me anything to work with when it comes to mixing ITB or OTB. Just ranting about this feature or the other. Maybe change your sig to something more freindly...


Fact is being aware of everything that goes on in your system behind the scenes makes you a better engineer, than you would be if you were not aware of it.
Of course there will always be more talented/innovative/artistic people than me, but how can I get better? by learning more, listening to others, thinking out the box and finally, Yes, understanding the limitations of the equipment I am using.

LE has limits. Not only artificial (DIGI applied for marketing reasons... and it IS a shame) but also the limits of any digital system. EG: If you've ever had a chance to push a AMS/Neve console to its limits you would know that things like that cannot be done in any digital system. Anyone using a digital system should know this or they will not get the best result they themselves can.

Its ridiculous to say that you would prefer a pure artistic talent guy over a technical guy (while that may be your preference, fine). Most people have both skills mixed to varying degree. Most musicians you might call "purely artistic" and you love them for that, are often masters of a technique as well. To be truly great in any aspect of life you need to OWN both the emotional and the knowledge.

Like I said in my earlier post, I appreciate your posts, I don't really think you are trollin, just keep it all in perspective and use your energy to help others. After all this is the purpose of this forum.

HTH, is my bottom line
...LOL ...

[masterduk]

"In an ideal analog-to-digital converter, where the quantization error is uniformly distributed between −1/2 LSB and +1/2 LSB, and the signal has a uniform distribution covering all quantization levels, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) can be calculated from:

snr of adc = 20log10(2^Q) ≈ 6.0206 * Q dB.


The most common test signals that fulfil this are full amplitude triangle waves and sawtooth waves.
In this case a 16-bit ADC has a maximum signal-to-noise ratio of 6.0206 × 16 = 96.33 dB.
When the input signal is a full-amplitude sine wave the distribution of the signal is no longer uniform, and the corresponding equation is instead:

snr of adc ≈ 1.761 + 6.0206 * Q dB.


Here, the quantization noise is once again assumed to be uniformly distributed. When the input signal has a high amplitude and a wide frequency spectrum this is the case.[1] In this case a 16-bit ADC has a maximum signal-to-noise ratio of 98.09 dB. The 1.761 difference in signal-to-noise only occurs due to the signal being a full-scale sine wave instead of a triangle/sawtooth.
For complex signals in high-resolution ADCs this is an accurate model. For low-resolution ADCs, low-level signals in high-resolution ADCs, and for simple waveforms the quantization noise is not uniformly distributed, making this model inaccurate.[2] In these cases the quantization noise distribution is strongly affected by the exact amplitude of the signal.


The calculations above, however, assume a completely filled input channel. If this is not the case - if the input signal is small - the relative quantization distortion can be very large. To circumvent this issue, analog compressors and expanders can be used, but these introduce large amounts of distortion as well, especially if the compressor does not match the expander."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_error


“Analysis of the quantization error of low-amplitude signals reveals that the spectrum is a function of the input signal. The error is not noiselike (as with high-amplitude signals); it is correlated. At the system output, when the quantized sample values reconstruct the analog waveform, the in-band components of the error are contained in the output signal. Because quantization error is a function of the original signal, it cannot be described as noise; rather, it must be classified as distortion.

As noted, when quantization error is random from sample to sample, the rms quantization error E (sub)rms = Q(12) sup.1/2. This equation demonstrates that the magnitude of the error is independent of the amplitude of the input signal, but depends on the size of the quantization interval; the greater the number of intervals, the lower the distortion. However, the relevant number of intervals is not only the number of intervals in the quantizer, but also the number intervals used to quantize a particular level. A maximum peak-to-peak signal (as used in the preceding analysis) presents the best case scenario because all the quantization intervals are exercised. However, as signal level decreases, fewer and fewer levels are exercised as shown in Fig. 2.8. For example, given a 16-bit quantizer, a half-amplitude signal would be mapped into half of the intervals. Instead of 65,536 levels, it would see 32,768 intervals. In other words, it would be quantized with 15-bit resolution.

The problem increases as the signal level decreases. A very low-level signal, for example, might receive only single-bit quantization or might not be quantized at all. In other words, as the signal level decreases, the percentage of distortion increases. Although the distortion percentage might be extremely small with a high level, ) 0 dBFS, its percentage increases significantly at low-amplitude levels.

The error floor of a digital audio system differs from the noise floor of an analog system, because in a digital system the error is a function of the signal. the nature of quantization error varies with the amplitude and nature of the audio signal. For broadband, high amplitude input signals the quantization error is perceived similarly to white noise.”


[ken pohlmann: principles of digital audio]

[Frank Kruse]

Originally Posted by masterduk

hi,

you guys might want to recognize some of the shortcomings of floating point.

also, one does not record at higher dBfs simply to get up above the "noise". one does so to better utilize the available bit depth, for greater accuracy.

Many still don´t understand that in the digital world bit depth translates to system noise floor. What do you mean by "greater accuracy"?
The bit depth of the system (and noise floor) is always the same no matter how hot you record. 24bit has a smaller noise floor than 16bit therefor you can afford to record at lower level and GREATER DYNAMIC because the system noise "is further away" from the quietest sound of your recording.
The only thing you´re achieving by slamming everything to the ceiling is reducing headroom and therefor dynamic range of your recording.


f.

[peppertree]

mano...I've posted most of the helpful comments in this thread in fact. If you don't understand them then certainly you should go back and meditate on them...I am not contradicting myself at all.

50% of audio engineering is not ITB mixing. For ITB mixing, at least in a modern DAW, "don't worry, be happy" is a fine motto. The emphasis should be entirely on the intangibles; what it is you all are trying to communicate. As I wrote near the top, ITB mixes empower all sorts of effects and automation that were not possible in realistic analog situations. Spend your mental energy discovering which of those serve the song rather than worrying where your faders happen to be. If you get distortion you don't want (rare, but possible) restructure. Cross analog bridges when you come to them. Every worthwhile situation is, and should be, too different to adopt an assembly line attitude laden with misbegotten dogma.

I have a confrontational style not everyone likes. But if you look closely I am not nearly as hostile to individuals as they are to me. I mostly ignore ad hominems and false "concern." I stay very much on topic and I respectfully debate those who do the same with me. Saying that something is wrong is not disrespectful; if I'm correct that it's wrong, it's helpful. Don't confuse respect with deference.

I do show a lot of tough love to digidesign...the company is headed south in a major way and has given us no reason to stop yelling about it. Empty promises won't work, and continued defense of the old TDM/HD technology that they simply MUST obsolete to stay relevant and alive is really worrying. The management isn't letting them go ahead and tell everyone that those of us arguing against it are actually arguing directly in the company's interests.

Making this about me is off topic, but many of you are insisting. I am not as interesting as ITB mixing.

[buckaroo]

WOW i've started quite a post here!!

Thansk for all the contributions... sounds like its a never ending debate between mixing ITB vs OTB