[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] The Hope of Audacity Was--Re: [ARSCLIST] Seeking recommendation



I guess what I am asking here is to do with specific combinations. I must admit that this is something I have never questioned. It has been my assumption that analogue audio enters one side of the AD converter (soundcard/audio interface) and the digital audio produced is represented through the software GUI - that the software does not change the digital content during capture and more importantly that different software does not alter the digital content, it merely represents the same content through a different GUI. However it seems that what is being said here is that different software will not only visually represent the same audio capture differently, but will also fundamentally alter or misrepresent the data part of the wav file.

Of course different software and indeed different versions of the same software will perform differently according to the algorithms and esoteric architecture of the filters used, but I am disturbed to find that I have been so naive as to assume that it is not only the AD converter that can influence the quality of sound captured. To be blunt, a good soundcard can be let down by poor software.

If this is the case, I would be interested to hear what experiences forum members have had with good and bad software/hardware combinations

Charles Lawson wrote:
Mike Hirst <mike.hirst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
However, reading Goran Finnberg's comments re the work dome by George Blood, I am surprised to find that different combinations of software and hardware can produce different results.

I am stunned by this statement.


This is *not* to be interpreted as a slam against Mike Hirst or anyone
else who does not know how different software/hardware combinations can
produce wildly different results.  It is merely an expression of shock
that such knowledge isn't common in the field and apparently isn't
imparted from day one of study.  The idea that
digital-is-digital-(is-perfect) could not be further from the truth.  The
first test any system should undergo is whether or not bits pass
unmolested (if no deliberate processing is applied) from input to output
back to input.  You will be amazed how many "high-end" systems fail this
test.  One of the reasons that I still regularly use a twelve-year-old
editing system for much final assembly of my work is that I can be sure
that the data are not being altered unless I specifically *tell* the
software to do it.

Maybe I do need to write that book, after all.  I never envisioned myself
as a crotchety old guy keeping the young whippersnappers on the
straight-and-narrow but I am evolving in that direction.  ;-)

--
Charles Lawson <clawson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Professional Audio for CD, DVD, Broadcast & Internet



-- Mike Hirst Managing Director DAS-360° 16 Ocean View Whitley Bay Tyne & Wear NE26 1AL

tel: 0191 289 3186
email: mike.hirst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web: http://www.das360.net


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]