LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2008

ARSCLIST August 2008

Subject:

The Hope of Audacity...

From:

George Blood <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:38:26 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (106 lines)

Hi, Friends,

There are a variety of issues that have been raised in this thread.

First is the disappointment others have mentioned that the tools we're  
buying are not doing what we think they're doing.  Namely, we're  
feeding them data (output of the A to D converter) and that data is  
being changed between the input and being written out into a file.   
Given the commercial pressures we all understand, writing stable code  
that has a few "quirks no one will find" could be seen as a simpler  
solution to making payroll than digging deep into the myriad of  
problems and the cooperation necessary from other vendors.   
Interoperability is a non-trivial issue.

Second, this is more than just an issue of you get what you pay for.   
Sure Sonic and Pyramix tend to perform better than the desktop  
applications.  But they control much more of the signal chain.  The  
lower priced programs hit their price point by handing off (or  
depending upon or using) the work of others (WaveLab, Samplitude,  
SoundForge, etc. let M-Audio, RME, PreSonus, etc build interfaces, for  
instance).  But who wants to be working 20 different other companies  
to assure interchangeability.  Ideally, everybody does.  The reality  
is, given the number of hours in the day, are you going to add the  
cool new feature, or chase down a bug with somebody else's code.   
Apple tried to make the world a simpler place with CoreAudio.  Great  
idea.  When it works.

Yes, they should begin with integrity of signal.  But if that's an  
obstacle, they build a workaround (a "trap").  And it suits the needs  
of 99% of their users (and appears to have snookered a far larger  
percentage!).  Who are we to deprive a bezillion garage bands of the  
features they need and pay for, just so we can have the needs of our  
small numbers met?

Lacking the tool vendors doing this work, each of us needs to shake  
down their own system.  It's a royal pain in the butt.  Every change  
in the system means re-checking it.  OK, so Peak 6 will now preserve  
the bext chunk (it used to blow it away).  But now it embeds waveform  
display info in the INFO chunk.  That's perfectly acceptable according  
to the .wav spec.  But it means there's garbage there that, 25 years  
from now, some preservation is going to sweat recovering, because "if  
it's in the file it must have been important".  Every program, every  
OS, every hardware, every driver change has the potential to disrupt a  
perfectly crystalline signal chain.

Third, what does it tell us in the trade that, for all our efforts to  
create higher resolution files, there's been overwhelming satisfaction  
with the lesser results.  Well, for one thing, it reminds us that  
there's more impact from good analog playback than from spending an  
extra whatever on 8 extra bits that are 30dB below the noise floor.   
For another, good AtoD design does amazing things when outputting  
lower res files.  It reminds us that so many of our source materials  
are of such low (or lower) quality that there isn't more information  
to be captured at the higher resolutions.  Once we argued over 48k vs  
44.1.  Then 96k.  Some want 192k, and others think 384 is worth  
doing.  Look folks, if you keep increasing the sample frequency, you  
won't start capturing video off the audio cassettes.  But you are  
building more and more fragile systems.  Where you have to break the  
files into multiple sub-file (due to the 2GB file size limit of WAV),  
you create a chance to lose one of the pieces.  Is this really better  
preservation than having one file (even 44/16) of the whole thing?

Fourth, while the pursuit of ever higher standards is a worthy goal  
(and the reason we have converters that perform so well at lower  
sample rates), there will always be circumstances in which an  
institution simply will not have the resources to "do it right".  We  
can all salivate at the enormous volumes of audio out there to be  
saved.  As much as we dream of driving Lexuses into retirement, your  
garden variety historical society with a shoebox full of oral  
histories may never be able to justify spending "what it costs" to  
"properly" digitize them.  If their board can get its act together and  
apply for grants, maybe there's a better use of that few thousand  
dollars. A use closer to their primary mission.  So a nice retired  
couple volunteers to bring in the CD-R recorder they bought for their  
granddaughter (who really wanted an iPod), plugs in the cassette  
player they picked up at a garage sale, and digitizes the shoebox of  
cassettes.  And lo and behold, that bit of history is preserved for  
the future.  Did they only get 80% of the information off the tapes.   
Yeah.  But 80% is a lot more than nothing.

This is a very slipper slope, of course.  For every Harvard or IU (and  
others) here are plenty of large institutions buying crap equipment,  
giving it to sleep-deprived, hung-over work-study students.   
Institutions that really do know better, and who could manage the  
resources to do a much better job (even if not "do it right").

And so it goes.  So it always has.  And so it always will.  Our job is  
to help advance the trade, do as well as we can, at a price that means  
more of it gets done.  Until we're all using $25,000 workstations and  
$15,000 A to D converter, (and more hours making our systems pass 24  
bits than lingering on ListServs!) we shouldn't be pointing fingers at  
the poor blokes trying eek out a living selling $250 (or free)  
software.  You get what you pay for.  If you paid for that, you got  
it.  Of your own free will.

Back to your regularly scheduled madness.

G

PS I bought my Prius when gas was $2.00/gallon.


On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:00 AM, ARSCLIST automatic digest system wrote:

> I believe George Blood is on this list.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager