My original post simply had to do with SY's comment about "...given that I do tube designs, the cognitive dissonance meter ought to be pegged."
So I PhotoShopped a cognitive dissonance meter out of an image of a VU meter just for fun.
Nothing more to it than that, and certainly nothing to do with "trouble."
se
Not mine.
All my stages are designed by this guy.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
se
Steve, Jacco, my sides are splitting. Where can I send the medical bill to please? I accept paypal
What? They don't have socialized healthcare in the Netherlands?
se
Vu meters don't represent the instantaneous peak or dip voltage output, they smooth the output so it is more or less the average output.
So Vu meters are not an accurate representation of the instantaneous peak output.
When dither is used. I was wondering how accurate a representation it makes of music and whether or not it might over smooth sudden peaks and valleys that often occur in music. How does it decipher between what should be smoothed and what shouldn't be smoothed.
I asked a hypothetical question about what would dither do to a stepped sine wave.
Would the stepped sine wave still come out as a stepped sine wave? Or would it be smoothed to represent a sine wave and hence not an accurate representation of the signal?
So I thought John was comparing a Vu meter to dither. That is, they both work, but do they produce an accurate representation of the instantaneous signal output?
Last edited:
Dither doesn't make a representation, it doesn't smooth, and it doesn't decipher.
Dither is no more or less than the addition of wideband noise, at a carefully judged level, to a payload signal, prior to a quantiser. Its effect is to decorrelate the quantisation distortion from the payload signal, turning it into noise.
Tonight I am listening to a biography of the band 'Fleetwood Mac'.
This was interesting to me, because I built a 30 ips analog recorder, and 'Tusk' was going to be the first recording to be made on it, in 1979, for Mobile Fidelity. I didn't know that a digital machine was going to be there as well.
Well, they chose the digital machine mixdown over the analog machine. I was surprised, because everything else was in analog, and CD's were not really out yet. However, I was told that they had worn out their masters with 'Rumors' their previous smash success, and digital was presumed to be perfect and never wear out.
I predicted that they would lose sales, from the addition of a digital interface, even though I thought the undigitized music in the studio was just great.
Well, after 30 years, I just heard that 'Tusk' was disappointing in sales, with less than 1/4 the sales as much as 'Rumors'. Was I correct in my prediction? Who knows?
This was interesting to me, because I built a 30 ips analog recorder, and 'Tusk' was going to be the first recording to be made on it, in 1979, for Mobile Fidelity. I didn't know that a digital machine was going to be there as well.
Well, they chose the digital machine mixdown over the analog machine. I was surprised, because everything else was in analog, and CD's were not really out yet. However, I was told that they had worn out their masters with 'Rumors' their previous smash success, and digital was presumed to be perfect and never wear out.
I predicted that they would lose sales, from the addition of a digital interface, even though I thought the undigitized music in the studio was just great.
Well, after 30 years, I just heard that 'Tusk' was disappointing in sales, with less than 1/4 the sales as much as 'Rumors'. Was I correct in my prediction? Who knows?
Last edited:
Do you know of any specific recordings that went into production using a recorder you built?
.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.