Open the GClip manual. Scroll to the end. Look at the credits for documentation. My name is Greg Pettit. I don't pretend to understand absolutely everything, having written the manual and not the code, but something tells me I'm more intimately familiar with GClip (an awesome plug-in) than you are. I have no doubt that you can clip with it, hence its name; however, the end result will be distortion, not loudness. My entire argument is based around the fact that digital clipping produces distortion.martian wrote:[re: GClip] firstly dont ever just tell me to forget something you dont even fully understand yourself, thats pointless.
And the circle goes round and round... "hard knee clipping" refers to an analogue-like process (even when in the digital domain) , and is not "digital clipping". I thought we had finally agreed on this one.secondly, i dont understand why you think it cant be doing hard knee digital clipping? its simple maths, and one can be built in a few mins.
Not having tried it, I suspect it's doing a hard-knee clip. Ie, what we think of as "clipping" when we refer to distortion units that produce analog clipping. Hard knee clipping done by a plug-in (which is therefore "digital") does NOT = "digital clipping".try this one (does exactly the same hard clipping): http://illformed.org/users/dblue/code/v ... lipper.zip
No it doesn't, it just needs to be converted into analogue. You don't have to be in 16-bit to be analogue. Tracktion and all other hosts I'm aware of get around it quite easily by outputting at the soundcard's resolution, which is generally 24-bit. If you are using a 16-bit soundcard, that's a different story.floating point has to be scaled down at some point before going out the s/card A/D which is typically 24bit, and will clip if you are over 0db. i dont own trackton so i wouldnt know how it gets around this?
I didn't say you're stupid, I just think you're missing some inforation, which is different. If you put me in front of a C++ window and say, "program something," and I don't know how to do it, that doesn't make me stupid. It just means I haven't learned how to do it.again im not that stupid and im very familiar with psychoacoustics, which you are obviously not if you think our imperfect hearing might not hear residue -30db down, either that or your confidence in me is minuscule. but theres no measurable difference here, not even below 16bits -96db range, try it.
I DO, however, lack confidence in you. I haven't a clue what your ears are like, and for all I know there are other mathmatical reasons (other than the fact that the waveforms are identical) for it. I don't know, I'll plead ignorance. But not being able to address one issue that you've brought up only shows that I don't have the answer to that particular point. It doesn't mean by extension that I don't understand what digital clipping (ie. a truncation of information) is doing.
OK, but the original point was that you showed me a picture that was NOT zoomed in to the sample level, so it's pretty tricky to go by what your picture showed, which is what you suggested I do. If you show me a "digitally clipped" waveform right next to your "hard-knee clipped" waveform, I'll show you 2 sound samples that have unpleasant-sounding and unusable (in a mastering context) sounds. Your original point wasn't that digital clipping can cause distortion (which I agree-- it CAN!) but rather that it does NOT produce audible distortion. When you "hard knee clip" your audio using a distortion unit or waveshaper, distortion is the result.no. at sample level they look completely different, as far as i know you cant make a limited waveform look like a hard cliped one. i asked you to try quite some time ago, if you really can then show me. i do however agree a waveform often tells me little about how it actually sounds. but someone else more knowledgeable will obviously be able to tell far more.
None here, either, but it's tricky to tell when you use language like, "don't ever tell me..." and "I'm not stupid"...no hard feelings btw, in general.
It SEEMS like you're getting pissed off, but it's good to know that you're not.Now that I could concentrate on an earlier post, there's something I figure I should address now: you asked, "what does it matter what the amplitude is, if they're 3 consecutive samples of the same amplitude?" I guess it depends on how they got there. If they were digitally clipped to achieve that status, then it'll sound different than if they weren't.
Let's visualize 3 upright posts of some malleable matter. If you cut of the tops with a chainsaw to get them the same size, you've removed some of the matter. If, however, you use a super-duper-molecular SQUEEZ-A-MADOO to squish those suckers down to size, and maintain the same dimensions (the extra molecules are now more densely packed, not removed), they may look the same, but they are certainly not the same.Again, for good measure: the term "digital clipping" ONLY ever refers to the truncation of information. It's not waveshaping, changing the sound, changing the dynamics (well, except for incidental dynamic changing caused by clipping or the technique you used to get there), or anything else. It is only the truncation of information. And if you do it for more than 3 samples in a row, particularly in melodic information, you will notice "undesirable" (again with the caveat that some people out there are twisted souls!) sounds.
Greg
.