KVR Audio

Silent Mind 2005 · Post by **Silent Mind 2005** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:31 pm

In this context, audiorate means controller rate = samplerate. (Since we are actually talking about two samplerate sources modulating eachother.)

;-) · Post by **;-)** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:56 pm

bmanic wrote:Exactly. Not a buzzword at all, just a word that contains the neccessary information within itself. AFAIK it's been used in synthesis vocabulary since the 50's? Why is suddenly all words that some people don't understand "buzzwords"?

- bManic

"Audiorate", if that isn't the most shity word for description of modulation frequency speed ...

(Audio has no "rate" (mostly "audio is a mixture of different tones having a certain frequency each at a certain point), except mayby the samplerate of that audio material. But audio is also not specially assigned to the digital domain. So that don't make any sense at all. Does it?)

.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:03 pm

;-) wrote:
bmanic wrote:Exactly. Not a buzzword at all, just a word that contains the neccessary information within itself. AFAIK it's been used in synthesis vocabulary since the 50's? Why is suddenly all words that some people don't understand "buzzwords"?

- bManic
"Audiorate", if that isn't the most shity word for description of modulation frequency speed ...

(Audio cannot have any rate, except mayby the samplerate. But audio is also not specially assigned to the digital domain. So that don't make any sense at all.)

.

Well, I didn't invent that word. And isn't Hertz, a measurement, a rate? And making that 'audible' it would need to be over 20hz or so = aka audible rate. Dunno if this is how the word came about but it's been around long and at least makes sense to me. Gotta be pretty damn anal to get so wined up by a simple word..

- bManic

;-) · Post by **;-)** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:05 pm

bmanic wrote:
;-) wrote:
bmanic wrote:Exactly. Not a buzzword at all, just a word that contains the neccessary information within itself. AFAIK it's been used in synthesis vocabulary since the 50's? Why is suddenly all words that some people don't understand "buzzwords"?

- bManic
"Audiorate", if that isn't the most shity word for description of modulation frequency speed ...

(Audio cannot have any rate, except mayby the samplerate. But audio is also not specially assigned to the digital domain. So that don't make any sense at all.)

.
Well, I didn't invent that word. And isn't Hertz, a measurement, a rate? And making that 'audible' it would need to be over 20hz or so = aka audible rate. Dunno if this is how the word came about but it's been around long and at least makes sense to me. Gotta be pretty damn anal to get so wined up by a simple word..

- bManic

You are not guilty. But isn't it nonsense?

And well, it certainly *is* used as a BUZZWORD lately ... By certain product manufactures in the plugin biz.

Nearly ALL LFO's on synthesizers have a maximum frequency which is in fact already inside that "audiorate" then. Since decades, no... since the very first synthesizers on this world.

Any modulation source can have a high frequeny and a LFO is basically a frequency limited oscillator, nothing else.

A comb filter is basically an "audiorate delay" then, or what ???

Whatsoever, whether it sounds good or not is quite another theme and has something to do with aliasing ...

.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:21 pm

;-) · Post by **;-)** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:34 pm

bmanic wrote:

Look: The earth rotation is too slow to fit into the "audiorate" range. Therefore it is completely crap. Because only "audiorate" is what counts novadays!

.

dharmawan · Post by **dharmawan** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:38 pm

Silent Mind 2005 wrote:Custom Ihsan Filter, not quite 6/12/18/24 dB, but a hybrid...

Distorted for your pleasure.

What's also interesting about this one, is that it only has the phase cost of a 6dB filter.

that sounds horrible

;-) · Post by **;-)** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:45 pm

dharmawan wrote: that sounds horrible

Eh?
That is the only kind of noise, most people here on kvr are even able to hear.

Don't you hear that beauty?

It sounds sooo aannaaalooog. To f**k.

.

Silent Mind 2005 · Post by **Silent Mind 2005** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:00 am

iocknioll.

Silent Mind 2005 · Post by **Silent Mind 2005** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:11 am

btw, I have listened to many types of analog filters, and personally I think my digital one is better than them.
One of the niceties of algorithm, is that one can choose to model analog or not, or tweak the variables to suit oneself.

Even better than the real thing.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:24 am

;-) wrote:"Audiorate", if that isn't the most shity word for description of modulation frequency speed ...

(Audio has no "rate" (mostly "audio is a mixture of different tones having a certain frequency each at a certain point), except mayby the samplerate of that audio material. But audio is also not specially assigned to the digital domain. So that don't make any sense at all. Does it?).

Oh for heaven's sake, here you go:

Audio: of or relating to acoustic, mechanical, or electrical frequencies corresponding to normally audible sound waves which are of frequencies approximately from 15 to 20,000 hertz

Taken from here. And:

Etymology of the noun audio in English: 1934, abstracted from prefix audio- (indicates sound or hearing, as in audio-frequency, 1919, etc.), from Latin audire "hear" (see audience). First used in English as a prefix 1913; audiophile first attested 1951.

Taken from here.

Audio does not exist without frequency, which is a rate, by definition. You know, your grasp of digital signal processing and computer programming is just lovely, but learning a little physics wouldn't kill you.

Audio also does not exist unless it is heard. If it wasn't heard we would call it something else. And since human language generally extends from human experience, it is safe to assume that we are talking about human hearing capabilities.

And many synthesizers and effects/processors/filters/whatever for some strange reason limit modulating oscillators to low frequencies. If "audio rate" has become a buzzword, it is only because of a backlash against this strange practice.

Silent Mind 2005 · Post by **Silent Mind 2005** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:50 am

Actually, to be quite precise, "Audio Rate Modulation", is a term usually used to describe, in the analog world, a frequency of modulation, applied to a source, that is within the hearable audio spectrum, as opposed to low frequency modulation, with is, as the name suggests, below audible frequency range.
Now, in the digital world, we also have "control rate". Which is the resolution or samplerate of the modulator.
For instance, it is very common to have low samplerates/control rates, as low as 60hz or even lower, for many modulators. (lfo's, envelopes etc). And this prevents "audio rate" modulation, on the devices that uses this practise. (Most stuff these days.) Ofcourse, to simulate analog, and have the kind of modulation matrixes analog used to have, oscillator to filter frequency, and other similar things, (stuff you don't see on most consumer devices today, because the control rate is too low, and it'd sound shabby) control rate should be the same as samplerate.
And ofcourse, then, one can do audiorate modulation.

;-) · Post by **;-)** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:17 am

shamann wrote:
;-) wrote:"Audiorate", if that isn't the most shity word for description of modulation frequency speed ...

(Audio has no "rate" (mostly "audio is a mixture of different tones having a certain frequency each at a certain point), except mayby the samplerate of that audio material. But audio is also not specially assigned to the digital domain. So that don't make any sense at all. Does it?).
Oh for heaven's sake, here you go:

Audio: of or relating to acoustic, mechanical, or electrical frequencies corresponding to normally audible sound waves which are of frequencies approximately from 15 to 20,000 hertz
Taken from here. And:

Etymology of the noun audio in English: 1934, abstracted from prefix audio- (indicates sound or hearing, as in audio-frequency, 1919, etc.), from Latin audire "hear" (see audience). First used in English as a prefix 1913; audiophile first attested 1951.
Taken from here.

Audio does not exist without frequency, which is a rate, by definition. You know, your grasp of digital signal processing and computer programming is just lovely, but learning a little physics wouldn't kill you.

Audio also does not exist unless it is heard. If it wasn't heard we would call it something else. And since human language generally extends from human experience, it is safe to assume that we are talking about human hearing capabilities.

And many synthesizers and effects/processors/filters/whatever for some strange reason limit modulating oscillators to low frequencies. If "audio rate" has become a buzzword, it is only because of a backlash against this strange practice.

I don't understand, that you did not understand that I did not wanted to be understood.

By the way: If "audiorate" means "audible audio frequency range", why it is not called "audible audio frequency range" but "audiorate"?

That makes absolutely no sense. Does it?

.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:20 am

Oh I see. Understood.

;-) · Post by **;-)** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:27 am

But I am sure most people will think, it is anything very special developed by some smart VSTi developers !

.

What are the best filters you have heard??