hairy_hen

In case anybody is interested, the file dark_jedi got from me a few days ago is a new isolated score, which has been processed with some really great analog gear.  If you'll forgive my boldness in saying so, none of us have ever heard the music of Star Wars sound this good before, and I hope it will be a satisfying addition to this great release of the film.  :)

I'll be glad to give more specific details of what was done if anyone wants to hear about it.

Ugh.  Somebody send those fools the DVD5 copy of Despecialized Edition 2.0, pronto!

By throwing out all EU works (many of which are admittedly crap), they have tried to nullify the validity of the Thrawn trilogy, which is among the best Star Wars stories ever written.

Since whatever they come up with will certainly be nowhere near as good as what Zahn has already done, I therefore reserve the right to completely nullify the validity of the new films and anything related to them.

That's really all that needs to be said.

Darth Truder and Darth Cendiary are no shows as well . . .

As far as I understand it, from reading posts by Dan Lavry (a designer of high-end hardware converters) and iZotope's Alexey Lukin, anti-aliasing should always be used, for any kind of conversion between sample rates.

The need for anti-aliasing is easier to comprehend for downsampling, since higher sample rates may contain ultrasonic frequencies that get pushed back down into lower regions if not first filtered out when going to a lower sample rate.  At 44.1 khz, the highest possible frequency that can ever be represented (commonly referred to as the Nyquist frequency) is half the sample rate, or 22.05 khz.  If you try to record anything higher than this, the DAC cannot distinguish between the actual signal and a lower frequency version that would fit into the same time relationship, and mathematically this works out to the difference between the ultrasonic frequency and Nyquist being 'mirrored' back down in the opposite direction.  For example, if you tried to record a 32.05 khz signal at a sample rate of 44.1, it would create an alias at 12.05 khz instead.  This aliased signal has no harmonic relationship to the original recording, and manifests as an unlistenable garbage tone.  Aliasing was quite a significant problem in the early days of digital audio, when more primitive converter design prevented filters from being as effective at rejecting ultrasonics as they needed to be, so it is likely that most digital recordings or transfers from those days contain a hashy, distorted top end to some degree.  (This may, indeed, include some of the early laserdiscs that are being preserved here).

We can see, then, that the need for anti-aliasing when downsampling is quite clear.  What is less clear, however, is why it is necessary when the sample rate is increased.  I don't claim to fully understand it myself, but apparently increasing the sample rate creates 'ghost images' of the original recording up in the ultrasonic range, and these too must be filtered out to maintain optimal quality.  They aren't as problematic as going the other way, since the higher the target sample rate, the shallower the filter needed to keep these ghost products inaudibly low, meaning the ringing introduced by the filter will therefore be less severe.  But they should still be filtered out rather than ignored—so in answer to the question posed above, I would say yes, anti-aliasing should always be enabled for SRC.  It's just a matter of determining the appropriate filter slope to correspond to which rates are being used.

The ability to use shallower anti-aliasing filters is actually the true benefit of using higher sample rates.  Contrary to what some would have you believe, there is really no mystical voodoo sound benefit that comes from recording ultrasonics, since not only can we not hear them, most microphones can't even pick them up, and most speakers and amplifiers will distort if forced to try to reproduce them.  The sound quality within our audible spectrum of hearing is no less good at 44.1 khz than it is at 192—good quality converters will capture all available detail within that range regardless of what rate is used.  Higher rates do not equate to greater time resolution at lower frequencies; in fact they are actually more prone to timing errors since the digital clock has to work so much harder to deliver each sample.  Those who claim to hear sound quality benefits to higher sample rates may indeed be hearing a difference, but the cause of this is simply that there is less ringing and/or aliasing due to the filters not needing to be as steep.

From all this it is evident that the quality of anti-alias filtering is one of the most important considerations in all of digital audio, and that the best sound can only be achieved when it is properly implemented.  Designing good quality filters at lower sample rates is quite a bit more difficult than at higher ones, which is why choosing the right converters (for recording, playback, and SRC purposes) is such a big deal.  It affects the clarity of everything you hear throughout the entire signal chain; and of course the better your analog section, the more noticeable any problems on the digital side will become.

So to sum all that up in one sentence: always use tools with good quality anti-aliasing enabled, and you'll be far ahead of the curve when it comes to delivering high fidelity results.

This website has comparisons of many SRC algorithms and is a great resource for seeing which ones are usable and which are not: http://src.infinitewave.ca

I see that Sound Forge has elements of iZotope RX, Ozone, and Nectar built into it, which is awesome.  I've recently started using these myself as Pro Tools plugins, and they really do sound great.  You can get some very good results from them if you know what you're doing, so if this is what's being used for laserdisc audio preservations, so much the better.

If you're not using iZotope or Weiss Saracon for sample rate conversion, you really should be.

All SRC processes unavoidably degrade the audio quality of the original source.  SRC algorithms require very steep lowpass filters to reject unwanted high frequency energy at greater than half the sample rate, which is introduced into the signal regardless of whether the target rate is higher or lower than it started out.  This level of steepness is necessary in order to retain the full signal within the audible bandwidth while falling to a sufficiently low level at the Nyquist frequency to prevent aliasing, meaning that signals greater than half the sample rate are folded back down into the audible range, creating inharmonic distortion.

Unfortunately, the steeper the filter, the greater the amount of ringing (time-smearing) that is introduced into the processed signal.  This ringing can be either pre or post: that is, it can manifest either forwards or backwards in time relative to its original position.  Linear phase filters are usually used in SRC in order to preserve the phase relationships of the signal, and this type of filter generates both pre- and post-ringing in equal measure.  Such ringing obscures the clarity of transients (high-level, short duration peaks) and gives a general sense of blurriness in the sound.

From these inherent problems with SRC (and it should be noted that the quality of analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters is affected by these exact same issues), we can see that there are three parameters the algorithm designer must contend with to obtain the best possible sound after conversion: filter steepness, which determines both the amount of aliasing that is allowed through and the amount of ringing that is introduced; filter phase, which determines the time relationship of the ringing to the original signal; and cutoff point, which is the frequency at which the filter begins rolling off the audio.  Higher steepness allows a greater frequency range to be represented and rejects most aliasing, at the expense of the ringing becoming far more severe.  Lower steepness avoids problematic ringing artifacts, but at the expense of greater aliasing.  Lowering the cutoff point can alleviate both issues, but restricts the bandwidth of the resulting audio by cutting off some of the high frequency range.

Optimal quality can only come from achieving a balance between these parameters, and there aren't many conversion algorithms out there that can be said to preserve the sound quality of the source signal while minimizing distortion.  That's really the best you can hope for with SRC—it's never going to be a perfect result, but a well-designed filter can keep the distortion products small enough that they won't affect the quality of what you hear.  The same is also true of ADCs and DACs, as well.  This is one of the caveats of digital audio: it's only as good as the math that was programmed into it, and outside the usable range of those equations it will fall apart completely, generating extremely nasty inharmonic distortions that analog audio never had to contend with.  So if you're going to do digital processing on your sound, you'd better be sure that the programmers knew what they were doing before entrusting your work to their knowledge of mathematics.

I should also point out that SRC should be performed at the highest possible bit depth your system can handle, in order to avoid quantization error (another form of digital distortion, resulting from the bit depth being too low to represent the signal with complete accuracy).  Afterwards, you can dither it back down to your target format.  The noise floor will be increased slightly by doing this, but the sound quality will be far better preserved.

My recommendation for sample rate conversion is to use iZotope's solution, which is the most affordable high quality converter out there.  Some implementations of it allow the user to control the parameters, so you ought to understand what they mean before changing them—hopefully the above explanation is helpful for this.  The settings I personally use are: Filter Steepness 32; Cutoff 0.95; Pre-Ringing 0.99.  To me, this represents an ideal result, with a relatively shallow filter in order to minimize ringing, a frequency response up to about 19.8 khz before filter rolloff begins, and the filter being nearly linear phase but not quite, in order to push the ringing slightly later in time (since post-ringing is less noticeable than pre-ringing).  A small amount of aliasing is allowed through, but it is at a very low level compared to the actual signal and is entirely confined to the range above 20 khz, where it is inaudible to anyone who isn't a dog or a liar.  ;)

I hope this clears up some confusion about SRC.  It is a complicated subject, and there's a lot of misinformation about it out there, but I'll be glad to answer any further questions.  If you follow the advice I've given, your converted audio will be difficult to distinguish from the source, which is the best that it can be.

It may be best if Moth3r writes the actual script for that, since I do tend to be rather busy these days (interning, and possibly soon getting some work as a music mixer).  But I have lots of interesting information about the various soundtracks of the SW films from all the time I've spent listening to them, and will gladly share it if that would be helpful for the documentary.

I'll certainly encode AC3 tracks for a new AVCHD.  The audio I made for v2.5 represents a significant improvement over earlier efforts, both in accuracy and in level-matching between the tracks, so any new encode should include these as well.

Now that I have part-time access to some really world-class audio equipment, in my spare time I've occasionally been revisiting my previous Star Wars projects to ensure that they hold up in terms of quality.  For the most part I think I got it right, but there are some things that can still be improved upon, especially in the isolated score.  So in the future at some point I'll no doubt issue some more updates.  ;)

Nobody 'forgot' about the Force.  As presented in the original film, it is clear we are supposed to think that it was never widely known in the first place, and that the people who have heard of it probably always thought it was mythical rubbish anyway.

I like to sodomize unmarried lamp posts, myself, but I can't speak for anyone else.

Okay, so I'm a hateful douche, because I defend the rights of gays against judgemental pricks who put them down by condescendingly claiming to have absolute moral authority on their side.

Yep.  This thread is officially hilarious.

"Oh no, we don't hate you, dear.  We just loathe and abhor everything about your inner self that makes you behave the way you do, but we don't hate you, we promise!"

Yeah, excuse me while I don't believe a word of this nonsense.

Bottom line: being gay isn't a sin.  God never said it was, because it's only an outdated superstition that got mixed up with a bunch of other unrelated writings.  Folks who believe every literal word of such things really need to take a step back and get with the times, because that kind of thinking is seriously outmoded and has no place in any modern society claiming to be civilized.  It's what gives religion a bad name, when if it actually followed the true spirit of Christ's message, it would be very wonderful indeed.

Now, if God actually had said that being gay was a sin, then I would say that God was a worthless sh!tbag, completely unworthy of being paid attention to in any way.  But he didn't.  I will, however, say that there is no such thing as Christianity, nor has there ever been, since hardly anyone in the history of the world has ever really tried to live life in accordance with his philosophies.  'Judge not', he said, and yet judging others for their differences is practically the only thing many so-called 'Christians' know how to do.  'Live and let live, and don't be a douchebag' is how it might be put in modern terms, but I guess that's just too complicated for some to figure out.

When you're more concerned about whether someone with a cock wants to get with someone else who also has a cock than you are with treating people decently, you're doing exactly the opposite of what Christ wanted.  When you condescendingly look down on someone for doing something you consider wrong or shameful, but which, in fact, informs the entire essence of their being and could no more be changed than the colour of their skin, all the while claiming only to want what's best for them, then you have a serious prejudice you don't want to acknowledge.  It is entirely necessary for such hypocrisy to be exposed for what it really is.

Try this example on for size:

"I don't hate you for being black.  It's so unfortunate you were born into a black family, because God says that all black people will go to Hell when they die, and you're really quite wonderful, dear, despite your disadvantage.  Have you tried being white instead?  It's the only way you could ever be saved, I'm sad to say, and I would really hate for you to have to burn . . ."

Needless to say, this doesn't fly AT ALL.  And all the anti-gay arguments I've ever heard have exactly this same sort of ridiculously skewed perspective behind them.  You can claim it's not the same thing all you want, but you're only fooling yourself if you try.  People with sense can see right through it, and we don't like what we see.  The world is moving on from this kind of thing, and thank goodness for that.  You should move on from it, too.  Trust me, it feels a lot better.

Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?

I 'understand' that this is the most pathetic and laughable excuse for bigotry I've ever heard.  If you can't hear the hypocrisy behind it, then you fail at life.

Take the judgemental bullsh!t somewhere else.  People with actual intelligence and compassion have no use for this sort of garbage, which is completely antithetical to anything that remotely resembles what Christ ever really said, or meant.

I have no patience for this kind of rubbish, and am not interested in debating it as if it were a point of view worth granting any consideration to at all.  Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.

Jeez, what a train wreck this thread is . . . I'm really glad I was away for two solid days at my recording internship and missed most of the nonsense.  Just skimming through it now was bad enough.

For what it's worth, God never said that being gay was a sin.  A bunch of superstitious idiots living thousands of years ago thought that's what was said, and put it down as if it was genuine.  Then a great number of people were raised to believe it, completely failing to see that they'd incorporated hate and fear into a philosophy that was meant to promote loving your neighbour above all.

If you need proof of concept, just watch Life of Brian.

One time I left a place because I didn't get along with somebody.  I got all huffy and sighed a lot, too.  I'm sure nobody missed me when I was gone.

. . .

I'm just kidding.  I didn't really do that.

They don't 'take their bodies with them'.  They transcend the need for physical existence altogether.

It's meta, man.  Deal with it.

There's a lot of fail going on in this thread . . . 

None of the movies are perfect, but man, some people just don't seem to actually like them much at all, given the kinds of things they complain about.  To me, this is sheer incomprehensibility.

Now there are four of them!

Oh, Zuulie . . .

As far as I can make out, there's a F0 out there somewhere who is doing some really great work on cinema DTS discs.

Then there's what is apparently the sock named Fo 1, an alternate identity whom we have learned takes inexplicable offense with the mere existence of Fink; and another sock called Fo 2, who takes even greater umbrage with Fink and is inclined to some unfortunate rage issues about it.

But what's most interesting of all is the recent discovery of Zuul Fo 3, who emerges from seemingly-innocuous refrigerators and is theorized by scientists to have taken over as the true identity behind them all.  Extreme caution is advised.

Since there is NO Fo1, Fo2, OR Fo3

There is no Dana, only Zuul.

Fink being forced to give up Ric Olie is, of course, entirely equivalent to the issue of sexual orientation.

Clearly this was a comment made by the Fo 2 sock, so we'll give Fo 1 the benefit of the doubt this time.

You know, it continually amazes me how many so-called 'fans' of Star Wars don't actually seem to like Star Wars that much at all . . .

The GOUT is not at all a good color reference, since it is significantly faded, washed out, and red-shifted.  Being closely based on a Technicolor print, the Despecialized Edition v2.5 is far more accurate to the way the movie is supposed to look, and any comparison of what is correct would do well to start with that.

It's the same concept as adding artificial tape hiss to a recording from which it has been digitally removed: you get back a sense of 'analog-ness', and it somehow 'feels' like there's more detail in the high frequencies.  If you manage to dial it in right, the constant low level noise throughout the recording helps glue the whole thing together sonically, and it no longer feels wrong as it did when the hiss was just missing altogether.  It doesn't actually add any detail back that was removed by the noise reduction, of course, but it can help make a better listening experience.

Tape also adds slight compression and harmonic distortion, which also help give that sense of rightness even while technically being less 'accurate'.  It's an odd phenomenon, that our brains seem to prefer the slight imperfections of analog, both for the visual and aural realms, because they feel more pleasant and 'real' than the cold over-precision of digital.  But since analog has so many physical limitations, while digital is much easier to work with and is limited only by the accuracy of the equations programmed into it, a blend of techniques from both domains is required to achieve the best possible results.

I propose a new thread in which Fo 3 lays out in detail how Fink is meaner to him than to Fo 1 or 2.

It must have been because of the gas.  ;)