 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (3)Hyperflake recycle belb ...and 309 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614187 Today 32 Topics 127546 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
should I feel guilty for totally loving my access virus c rack xl? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i could easily make music without any analogue gear but i wouldnt waste my time trying to coax analogue-ish sounds out of a computer. i still like the sound of some soft synths tho, but more for what they are than for what theyre trying to represent. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, they're great and I want the TI desktop one ;-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah... id get that if it wasnt for having less then 1% of the price of one in my bank account. :'( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
tnav is correct when referring to forier, but im not sure about the []wave bit. i must be mis-reading you because it says an mp3 encoding takes a sine wave and converts it into a square wave? not to be output i hope, i think you mean just within the computer realm (digital) before the conversion to the output device. oh, and ecnad, "No offense intended to anyone directly, but every last one of you are fucking stupid and don't know what you are talking about. In fact the only person making much sense was Zephyr Twin but then he had to fucking spoil it all by going into some Star Trek bullshit. " don't make a statement like this without information to add to the discussion. you look like an ass |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
does it matter? NERD!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what a brilliant contribution. shut the fuck up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lalala... a computer can't make a circle! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
don't be so superior, you can't either !!! ;D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahaha! I have a higher chance of accomplishing it, though! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in your specific case I wouldn't be so sure.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"stop saying everything is digital at a higher resolution it doesn't make sense. molecules are not digits." I didn't say they were digits, I said they were discrete components, which is effectivly what the "percieved" difference between analog and digital is. There is no such thing as a "continuous wave" of sound it's just lot's of molecules bumping into each other, the pattern is a wave (at an ultra high resoloution) but the components that make the wave are seperate entities like the o's and 1's in a digital sample, understand what I mean now? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
goddamn what a load of crap |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the human ear can detect displacements smaller than the radius of say an O2 molecule. you are talking bollox |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in fact nothing is discrete, and at your ultra high resolution EVERYTHING has wavelike properties |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have had the continous/discrete argument with a pal before. Some people believe that there are discrete units in space which nothing can get smaller than. Sort of how people used to view the atom. I don't buy it, but if you want t o look into it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ha, I'm must reading a novel called Schild's Ladder by Greg Egan about people in the future testing the theory of quantum geometry - that all spacetime is made up of geometric patterns that are more or less stable according to their particular configuration. A photon is one self-replicating geometry in the quantum structure of vacuum that appears to move as it replicates. Of course while investigating this the scientists create a new kind of vacuum that is more stable (has a lower energy state) and starts expanding at half the speed of light, destroying the known universe... goldurned scienticians. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
BTW no digital emulation will ever be able to model the full complexity of an analog synth with all its subtle chaos and unpredictability no matter what the sampling rate. It's like expecting the finest porn to be as good as real sex. Of course most electronic musicians will never own an analog synth, just as they will never touch a real woman. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ouch |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Everything in the universe as we know it (reality) is analogue. 'Digitalness' (is there even a proper noun for it?) is a modelled representation of reality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"you are talking bollox" errr don't think so somehow, I'm a qualified sound designer FYI and I do know what I'm talking about. To reiterate, ALL sound is nothing more than movement in air molecules, it's one molecule knocking against another molecule into another and so on until it reaches your ear, your brain then interpretes the movement of these molecules into sound. Air molecules are discrete components and aren't actually physically linked to one another therefore ALL sound is made up of discrete components, it's not all that hard to understand surely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i reckon "digilog" is the way to go really I'm reminded of the seinfeld episode where george an dgerry are having coffee and goerge is trying to say what a decent human being he is: george: "You know i can detect the tiiniest amount of human suffering." seinfeld: "Really? Are you detecting anything right now....." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're confusing frequency of vibration with the medium through which it is being transferred. You ever seen a "newton's cradle"? You could say that the quantum unit of force in that case is the metal ball - I mean, if you were an idiot you could say that. What if you were in a vacuum and struck a pitch fork and held it to your skull so you could sense the vibration? The vibration certainly wouldn't be defined by the size of air molecules in that case, would it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn't express myself very well - of course the vibration will be affected by its medium but the point is that the frequency is continuously variable - its steps are not quantized - we say that in music theory a semitone is divided up into 100 cents, and a digital sound system has a particular sampling rate, but there's no set number of gradations between pitches in an analog or physical system. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what´s the deal with the circle. Analogue - Digital - Just make the music, don´t worry, be happy. ok :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"What if you were in a vacuum and struck a pitch fork and held it to your skull so you could sense the vibration? The vibration certainly wouldn't be defined by the size of air molecules in that case, would it?" well if you were in a vacuum with no air you would die, but the vibration you would sense if this wasn't the case would be more akin to the sense of touch than the sense of hearing, deaf people can hear through vibration but it's not "hearing" as we know it, ie the stimulation of the inner workings of the ear, if there was no air in the room and you held it up to your ear you would hear nothing at all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"if there was no air in the room and you held it up to your ear you would hear nothing at all." which is precisely why you can't hear much under water unless it is traveling in pockets of air [read: bubbles]. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, the vibration would travel through your skull-bone to your hammer and anvil and cochlea and all those fiddly bits and you would hear it. Actually there's a few music devices built along this principle if I'm not mistaken... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Soundguy was dumped by mira cocklix. anyway..... the point is , we're not in an oxygenless vacuum. do you like music A or B. that's it really. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my speakers say 'designed for digital audio' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
CHOOSE A OR B OR I'M BLOWING THE HATCH * sound effect: death by explosive decompression * |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ha Ha! it's true though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think people are lost in all this... now, without reading any of the other posts, I will make a new post. dig·i·tal Audio pronunciation of "digital" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dj-tl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or resembling a digit, especially a finger. 2. Operated or done with the fingers: a digital switch. 3. Having digits. 4. Expressed in numerical form, especially for use by a computer. 5. Computer Science. Of or relating to a device that can read, write, or store information that is represented in numerical form. See Usage Note at virtual. 6. Using or giving a reading in digits: a digital clock. I guess 4 is the relevant definition. Thus, digital is something inside a computer (or computing unit, like that thing that decodes the information on a CD, which kind of makes it a computer). This excludes any possibility of "digital" existing in real life. It is merely a metaphysical object inside a computer, and is comparable to letters in a book. They don't really exist (there may be ink on the page, but the letters have no existance of their own..). whether or not air-molecules bouncing together or electrical impulses in the brain can be twisted to resemble the workings of a computer, the computer is the child of these ancient workings, and mimic them, not the other way around. To sum up: you never hear or see anything digital. Everything is "analogue" (this is NOT the correct word to use, since analogue, in this context, also has something to do with data-storage, and doesn't exist...) when it reaches you, but it may be stored and encoded "digitally," which sometimes means you can tell the difference, but the difference is in a "real" quality, not a digital quality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If it's digital it means it's like a computer. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, it means it only "exists" within the system of the computer. the computer itself may be analogue (none of the computers today are, and I don't mean computer in the way the word is used today.. a computer is a device for computing... calculating in a way, but not quite) or digital. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
" 4. Expressed in numerical form, especially for use by a computer." That could also be read "Expressed in a discrete computable form" w/ respect the the air molecules "knocking" together, that is a continuous dynamical system, not a discrete system |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If I print some windows files on paper and mail them to you will you tell me if they're digital? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sure! send them to: Richard D James East Swansea Road 13 2342 Swansea just mark the package "Anthrax," and you're sure it'll arrive. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I better put some talcum powder in the envelope so the digitals don't get chafed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
good.. nay, GREAT idea! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Soundguy was dumped by mira cocklix." and pray tell, were did this information come from? and even if it were true, how is it relevant to the debate? some people need to grow up a bit me thinks. "No, the vibration would travel through your skull-bone to your hammer and anvil and cochlea and all those fiddly bits and you would hear it. Actually there's a few music devices built along this principle if I'm not mistaken..." True.. but the molecules in your skull etc are denser than air molecules thus the sound you hear would not be the same as if the air molecules were stimulating your "fiddly bits" directly. It would be as if (Like as Zephyr Twin said) you were underwater, higher frequencies would be absorbed and therfore it's not really hearing as we know it. But yes I concurr, the molecules in your skull are less like discrete components and therfore cannot really be compared to a digital waveform, but what I said about air molecules still stands, and they are, like it or not, the medium through which the majority of us experience sound and therfore the most relevant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so was she any good or what? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
HAHAHA :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shit, i'd put it in her. I'd play "skin with me" at the same time too just for bonus points. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
" 4. Expressed in numerical form, especially for use by a computer." That could also be read "Expressed in a discrete computable form" w/ respect the the air molecules "knocking" together, that is a continuous dynamical system, not a discrete system" But the argument for analog is that the waveforms are "smooth" waves and digital is a series of 0s and 1s, I was just trying to demonstrate that sound as we know it is comprised not of a smooth wave but a series of small components and therfore has a "resoloution" so to speak, just like digital. In actual fact the reason that analog sounds different has nothing to do with the "smoothness" of the wave, it's more about harmonics than anything else. for example, to achieve a perfect sawtooth wave on an analog machine is nigh on impossible because you will always have extra harmonics creeping in due to circuitry etc, that's why digital sawtooth waves can sound "flatter" than analog one's, but it's not really the fault of the digital wave, which will probably follow perfectly the requirments of a sawtooth (odd and even harmonics up to whatever the Nyquist limit of that wave is), it's the imperfctions in the analog wave that give it character, and these imperfections are quite difficult to emulate properly using software. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"so was she any good or what?" yes, if you must know |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What is the Nyquist limit of sound traveling in air? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
" What is the Nyquist limit of sound traveling in air?" Ifinite in theory, but you'd be lucky to hear up to about 20000 hz |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're talking absolute shit. First of all, of course it's theoretically infinite. The size of the air molecules has no bearing - a ringing bell and a second ringing bell half the size have different pitches but the larger deeper bell doesn't have a lower "sampling rate". Second of all, the limits of human hearing have nothing to do with the Nyquist limits. I can hear aliasing perfectly well with my human ears and so can you. And the fact that it's there means that the digital representation of frequency is fundamentally different from vibration in a physical system. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
