KVR Audio

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:44 pm

Mans wrote:
Wouldn't that mean that a synth performance would not be able to be stored as sample values either? And what makes a waveform stored as sample values different from a waveform stored as say particles on tape with varying magnetism (other of course than the fact that stored as sample values sigficantly decreases the distortion and increases the dynamic range) when it reaches the ear? Or any other sound wave for that matter? Aren't you saying that nothing can be faithfully recorded?

I'm not saying that it's actually the case. My reasoning is that the volume envelope in the end is nothing other than a very slow oscillation in itself, so it needs more space (remember, 1 Hz is a whole second of lenght). Under this premise it can be reproduced if you have sufficient space before the actual envelope to accomodate for this very low frequency wave. It cannot be done in real time, latency would always be there.
Remember, I'm just theorizing here from some observations, I don't have the proper technical background to say anything definite. I might be totally wrong.

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:45 pm

BTW, I'd be very interested what people think about the 303 track.

Mans · Post by **Mans** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:21 pm

living sounds wrote: I'm not saying that it's actually the case. My reasoning is that the volume envelope in the end is nothing other than a very slow oscillation in itself, so it needs more space (remember, 1 Hz is a whole second of lenght). Under this premise it can be reproduced if you have sufficient space before the actual envelope to accomodate for this very low frequency wave. It cannot be done in real time, latency would always be there.
Remember, I'm just theorizing here from some observations, I don't have the proper technical background to say anything definite. I might be totally wrong.

I'm not sure that I understand you correctly but there is absolutely no need to store anything that can not be detected by our auditory system for the sake of faithful reproduction. When a low frequency wave modulates the amplitude of another wave that is within our hearing range we only need to store the audible result of that modulation, not the modulator itself.

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:32 pm

Mans wrote:
I'm not sure that I understand you correctly but there is absolutely no need to store anything that can not be detected by our auditory system for the sake of faithful reproduction. When a low frequency wave modulates the amplitude of another wave that is within our hearing range we only need to store the audible result of that modulation, not the modulator itself.

My reasoning behind this is that the part before the envelope peak is needed for full reproduction, meaning the reconstruction in the DA ideally will get rid of it again. Again, I might be totally off with this.

themossinator · Post by **themossinator** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:07 am

living sounds wrote:BTW, I'd be very interested what people think about the 303 track.

Is that really a 303? Im comparing it to something i would hear in a Josh Wink track but....im not sure

probably completely wrong

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:29 am

Just out of curiosity, why do people who think that software is inferior to hardware frequent a software forum? I know that I have asked this before, but the answer escapes me.

ew · Post by ew » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:32 am

herodotus wrote:Just out of curiosity, why do people who think that software is inferior to hardware frequent a software forum? I know that I have asked this before, but the answer escapes me.

You too, John?

ew

ew · Post by ew » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:39 am

living sounds wrote:I've got a suspicion that the part before the envelope starts is important for the preceived impact of the sound.

Say what? How can that have any impact on the sound- it doesn't have any impact if it's pre-envelope, no matter what

ew

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:46 am

ew wrote:
herodotus wrote:Just out of curiosity, why do people who think that software is inferior to hardware frequent a software forum? I know that I have asked this before, but the answer escapes me.
You too, John?

Yeah, it's actually kind of puzzling. I used to think it was trolling, which is something I understand, even if I don't actually like it. But I have come to the conclusion that this is not really true, at least not in many cases.

hmmmm...

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:56 am

herodotus wrote:
ew wrote:
herodotus wrote:Just out of curiosity, why do people who think that software is inferior to hardware frequent a software forum? I know that I have asked this before, but the answer escapes me.
You too, John?
Yeah, it's actually kind of puzzling. I used to think it was trolling, which is something I understand, even if I don't actually like it. But I have come to the conclusion that this is not really true, at least not in many cases.

hmmmm...

its like when the little fat balding bloke with glasses in accounts, you know smells feintly of cheese...
well, when he gets a ferrari or speedboat.
except he actually has the ferrari/speedboat, not just the inferiority complex that requires constant attention.
theyre the riff raff of hardware forums, no one takes them seriously there* so they come here to feel a false sense of superiority.
its quite sad really, if they have the equipment that is so ama-f**king-zing (gotta love a random tmesis in an otherwise f**k free post) why arent they busy making music instead of licking their own nuts here?

*-and here mostly too.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:15 am

vurt wrote:why arent they busy making music instead of licking their own nuts here?

Even music makers have to take time out to lick their nuts.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 am

shamann wrote:
vurt wrote:why arent they busy making music instead of licking their own nuts here?
Even music makers have to take time out to lick their nuts.

yes, but do the nutlickers take time out to make music?

ew · Post by ew » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:20 am

vurt wrote:
shamann wrote:
vurt wrote:why arent they busy making music instead of licking their own nuts here?
Even music makers have to take time out to lick their nuts.
yes, but do the nutlickers take time out to make music?

There's more to life than nutlicking? Explain, please...

ew

justin3am · Post by **justin3am** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:23 am

vurt wrote:
shamann wrote:
vurt wrote:why arent they busy making music instead of licking their own nuts here?
Even music makers have to take time out to lick their nuts.
yes, but do the nutlickers take time out to make music?

I'll respond for the nutlickers as most of us don't post on music forums.

Those of us that make music try to involve nutlicking in said music and therefore classify it as nutlicking as well, musical-nutlicking if you will. Similarly, the artists among us generally say that they don't make art, they lick their nuts artistically.

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:26 am

ew wrote:
vurt wrote:
shamann wrote:
vurt wrote:why arent they busy making music instead of licking their own nuts here?
Even music makers have to take time out to lick their nuts.
yes, but do the nutlickers take time out to make music?
There's more to life than nutlicking? Explain, please...

ew

Sadly, for some of us, nutlicking is an ever-elusive goal rather than something we can take for granted.

Perhaps this is why we so often hear that emulations are 'almost there' but not quite? Art imitating life?

Analog or digital ?