The Crystallizer explained

B

BBA

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
5,382
Basically, Digit-Life slammed CL with incomplete testing that lead to faulty assumptions and an incorrect analysis. CL replied with the tech who actually coded the crystallizer to straighten the story out.

The skinny, even in the words of the somewhat biased author of the article:

At last we've learnt enough about the 24-bit Crystalizer technology. It's quite a complex combination of static and dynamic signal processing, which cannot be defined in a single term. That's why Creative patented Crystalizer as an independent creation.
Click to expand...

If you want a simple non engineering explanation of it from the techs who actually created it:

Creative's 24-Bit Crystalizer is best understood as a signal-dependent, dynamic EQ.The source of its intelligence is an analysis front end that continuously calculates dynamically-normalized, separate low-frequency and high-frequency energy flux signals, based on nonlinear processing of the input audio streams.These two flux signals are used to apply proportionally-weighted, transient, low-frequency and high-frequency boosts to the input audio.

The careful design of the front-end analysis and the proportional response of the dynamic EQ are both critical to allowing audio signals to be perceptibly altered without introducing objectionable processing-induced artifacts. There is also an additional static component to the EQ, which contributes to the overall perceptual effect.
Click to expand...

So, do you want it to be a perfect reproduction of the original by using the crystallizer to rip CD's to 24 bit media? You won't get it. What you will get is a processed sound that has dynamically expanded highs and lows based on source signal attack rates at different freuencies. In effect, a punchier sound.

Now I know some here would still bash the technology, but it woildn't change the fact more people who have tried it like than who have tried it and not liked it.

So much for the arrogant conclusion of X-Fi = loudness button. :D

If you want a great add in sound card that lets you do this type effect, as well as accelerate game audio in hardware, CL is the only place to get it. Bar none.

In fact, no other card on the market even accelerates game audio in hardware! (Discounting the nforce 2 soundstorm that nvidia vowed to drop, as it is NOT a seperate card that can be used as part of today's modern 64 bit enabled systems.)





BTW: The article is here:

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/multimedia/creative-x-fi-part2.html
 
But the entire presumption of the technology is that the CD format sucks and needs manipulation.

That's patently false. Mastering issues aside (which they do address in the article), a properly recorded CD already has well more data on it than human perception allows for detection of, and a lossless copy of the CD (say, a FLAC file) is going to be as identical to the source sound AS IS POSSIBLE.

IE., rip a track off a CD to FLAC format twice - once played back with just a plain rip, the other played back with the Crystalizer applied. If you could compare the playback of those two tracks to the original source of the recording, the first (plain rip) WILL BE CLOSER than the Crystalizer version.

I suppose the only way to really settle that would be to due a waveform comparison of an album that is available in identical DVD-Audio format (representing "the source sound") and a CD-Audio format. Rip two tracks from the CD-Audio format to FLAC, Crystalize one and leave the other straight playback, and compare the waveform of each to the DVD-Audio playback of the same track. (I think that would actually be possible with Nine Inch Nails' new album. And gods know there is enough instrumentation going on there to show any differences!)
 
dderidex said:
But the entire presumption of the technology is that the CD format sucks and needs manipulation.

That's patently false.
Click to expand...

That is not the presumption, and CL never claims it. That is strictly your assumption.

What CL claims, and is technically correct is this, and I quote:

First the processor converts the audio into 24 bit/96kHz quality using it's virtually transparent SRC (Sample Rate Converter) engine. Then it remasters and selectively enhances the audio by analyzing and identifying which parts of the audio stream have been restricted/damaged during the compression stages to 16-bit and then to MP3. The result of these enhancements is music that sounds cleaner, smoother and has more sparkle, and movies that sound more realistic than ever before.
Click to expand...

It says nothing about making audio sound better than the CD, only better than the MP3 ripped music.
 
I believe it, because it does offer an experience beyond the original recordings. Might be a tad misleading and it may not be an experience you will like, but, that's marketing for ya. :)
 
That is the whole point of Digit-Life's review.
They are attempting to sort through the mismash of marketing that Creative attached to the Crystallizer but instead of taking their assessment with a grain of salt you labeled it as "faulty assumptions and an incorrect analysis" which is very closed minded in my opinion.
At least they are offering an objective analysis.... which goes a lot further then blanket statements like this one:
Now I know some here would still bash the technology, but it woildn't change the fact more people who have tried it like than who have tried it and not liked it.
Click to expand...
 
Any dsp changes the original sound that was mastered to CD. As far as audiophiles should be concerned, X-fi is a gimmick. People who have cheaper headphones (base consumer stuff) will probably think it's the next big thing.
 
First the processor converts the audio into 24 bit/96kHz quality using it's virtually transparent SRC (Sample Rate Converter) engine. Then it remasters and selectively enhances the audio by analyzing and identifying which parts of the audio stream have been restricted/damaged during the compression stages to 16-bit and then to MP3. The result of these enhancements is music that sounds cleaner, smoother and has more sparkle, and movies that sound more realistic than ever before.
Click to expand...

This (bolded) part is just a flat-out lie. There is no method for any DSP to do anything like what they say.
First off, conversion to 16-bit has nothing to do with compression. It is called dithering and truncation. Through dithering, commonly the last process applied to a master before it is sent out for duplication on Redbook (CD audio), it is possible to retain about 20 bits of resolution in the final 16-bit master. As soon as you start adding DSP to this, though, you really mess up the resolution. Also, bit depth does not signify any change in tonality or "clarity." It is about low-level details, such as the smooth trail of the chamber reverb on the quietest part of an orchestral piece. It is practically irrelevant to 2-track masters of modern pop music, which (with so much compression) generally use only around 6-12 bits throughout the whole song!
You cannot "identify" a signal which has been lost through the noise floor, and attempt to bring it back. Once it's gone, the signal is no longer there, and there is no "hint" of what it once might have been - except through using dither noise, which can only be applied successfully at a time when you are starting with the original higher-resolution file and moving down in bit-depth, not the other way around.
It appears as though Crysalizer is really just a multi-band expander combined with a static EQ set to some values that Creative thought people might like. If I think my speaker system could use EQ, I'll apply it myself, thanks. And I don't want anyone mucking around with the intended dynamics of the song, either.

This technology is absolutely nothing to do with "restoring the original sound." Trust me, the tracks NEVER sounded anything like this at any point in the recording process.
I am a studio owner and recording engineer, and I have to say that technologies such as this really dissapoint me, because the way I mix a song becomes far less relevant than what your consumer DSP is doing to screw around with it.
 
One more thing.

Creative's 24-Bit Crystalizer is best understood as a signal-dependent, dynamic EQ.The source of its intelligence is an analysis front end that continuously calculates dynamically-normalized, separate low-frequency and high-frequency energy flux signals, based on nonlinear processing of the input audio streams.These two flux signals are used to apply proportionally-weighted, transient, low-frequency and high-frequency boosts to the input audio.
Click to expand...

This is really just fancy "attempting-to-confuse-you" speak for saying it's an auto-threshold multiband expander; and maybe (if you're lucky) the EQ is linear-phase.
The very word they used "nonlinear" should scare anyone who knows a thing or two about DSP. (This is a seperate and unrelated issue from linear-phase BTW).
Any non-linear process applied through DSP is going to cause some amount of aliasing and distortion. It can be significant, or it might be nearly irrelevant (most people using the Crystalizer are hopefully listening on pretty poor systems anyway, so this may go unnoticed), depending on a lot of complex factors.
But, this basic Nyquist fact is contradictory of their later claim that it introduces no negative artifacts. This is untrue.

Crystalizer is a gimmick that messes with the TONALITY and DYNAMICS of the original recording, and nothing to do with the actual low-level details they claim to restore.
 
Ok now: Just take a deep breath and relax...this is not going to hurt.

I know it may come as a surprise, but people modify audio everyday...

...and they LIKE it!!!

I know its terrible...but they do it, EVERYDAY!!!

Your neighbors, they may be doing it RIGHT NOW...but fear not, you will be ok, by the grace of Grado... that unkempt unpure music shall not harm you!!!


But, hear now on a more serious note, I would beg to differ in the criticism and will even present the argument that listening to music on (gasp) an LP sounds better than listening to the same music on CD. The CD 16 bit compression and quantization really does remove a lot of detail from music, wether you believe it or not. Just a few hours with a nice turntable and cartridge and a CD player can teach even the most modernized ear.

It's the same as with listening to tube amps, as opposed to solid state. There is a difference in natural even order harmonic distortion that the brain perceives as natural and real...it's something solid state does not produce. The human ear perceives even order harmonics (from live musical instruments down to tube amps) as natural and pleasing while odd order harmonic distortions created by solid state will be pointed out and hated. There has been several studies to verify this, even several documented subjective test researches verified people couldn't perceive distortion up to almost 10% THD when it was even order harmonic distortion from a tube amp and analog source, while the same people could instantly perceive less than 1% harmonic distortion produced by solid state amplifiers.

It's for these same reasons, you shouldn't really be bothered if the crystallizer modifies the sound. The CD and MP3 sound is not the way it was meant to be anyway. Just simply listening to music on a computer should be the biggest hint to you that something may not be right in the first place. Please, lets not degrade this to even remotely resemble an argument where some one wanting pure music so from their CD player in their computer, that would be just plain silly.

Now, on the other hand, listening to DVD-Audio or SACD will in fact provide a much cleaner and more natural sound, but as of now, you either have to have an extremely rare DVD/SACD player for your home stereo, or drive a new Audi with DVD-Audio or listen to it on a computer equiped with an Audigy 2 or newer sound card.

What gets me is people are slamming CL because of the crystallizer that can be turned on or off at will; while they themselves listen to CD and MP3 music they subject to dolby compression, just for the mere fact they are able to run an optical connection between their computer and their receiver. Now thats both arrogant and silly in my book.
 
dasbin said:
Crystalizer is a gimmick that messes with the TONALITY and DYNAMICS of the original recording, and nothing to do with the actual low-level details they claim to restore.
Click to expand...


Your completely right it messes with the dynamics, but in a good way.
Your wrong as well, it does not mess with the tonality.

You should just listen for yourself before making harsh judgements.
 
dasbin said:
This (bolded) part is just a flat-out lie. There is no method for any DSP to do anything like what they say.
Click to expand...

I suggest you take CL to court for fals advertising if you truly believe that.

First off, conversion to 16-bit has nothing to do with compression. It is called dithering and truncation. Through dithering, commonly the last process applied to a master before it is sent out for duplication on Redbook (CD audio), it is possible to retain about 20 bits of resolution in the final 16-bit master.
Click to expand...

If you look, you can find thousands of books and article written by audiophiles who claim both quantifiably and subjectively as to what 16 bit quantization does to the sound of music.


You cannot "identify" a signal which has been lost through the noise floor, and attempt to bring it back.
Click to expand...

And that is what CL even said, or did you not read the article?

This technology is absolutely nothing to do with "restoring the original sound."
Click to expand...

And there has never been any claim by CL that it does.
 
BBA is just trying to convince himself the X-Fi is this awesome product that completely revolutionizes audio, in truth it is a semi-decent DAC and good effect for games but eh.

If you REALLY want to make your music better on your computer, get an EMU 0404/1212M soundcard or a nice external DAC, and then some good speakers and/or get a good headphone amp and some good headphones.

Turning on this thing will just distort your audio and cheap headphones or some Klispch/Logitech 5.1s will still not sound as good as any half-way decent audiophile setup.
 
BBA said:
Ok now: Just take a deep breath and relax...this is not going to hurt.

I know it may come as a surprise, but people modify audio everyday...

What gets me is people are slamming CL because of the crystallizer that can be turned on or off at will; while they themselves listen to CD and MP3 music they subject to dolby compression, just for the mere fact they are able to run an optical connection between their computer and their receiver. Now thats both arrogant and silly in my book.
Click to expand...

Yes, many HDA-M are trying to say that HDA-M is doing higher order DDL than the normal 384kbs.

Donnie27
 
Wow, where to begin.

BBA said:
But, hear now on a more serious note, I would beg to differ in the criticism and will even present the argument that listening to music on (gasp) an LP sounds better than listening to the same music on CD. The CD 16 bit compression and quantization really does remove a lot of detail from music, wether you believe it or not. Just a few hours with a nice turntable and cartridge and a CD player can teach even the most modernized ear.
Click to expand...
You are trying to draw empirical conclusions from anecdotal evidence.
As I said, I am a recording engineer. I have some training in digital audio theory, including Nyquist, and I deal with subjective sound quailty assessments every single day.
You are making some statements that sound like you read somewhere else but don't fully understand what they mean. They are scientifically meaningless or misguided. I'll only examine a few because there is really a lot of misinformation here.
16-bit sampling gives a theoretical dynamic range of 96db. This number, and ONLY this number, is the sole theoretical limitation of a 16-bit format. Although, it can be increased using dithering to well over 100db. An average LP has a maximum dynamic range of about 50db.
The CD clearly has the technical advantage, but you are indeed right to point out that an LP can often sound superior. But this has nothing to do with the limitations of the 16-bit format and nothing at ALL to do with the Crystallizer. It is in fact due to the inherent weakness of the LP system in generating false harmonics. I'll explain that below.

edit: I just realized this does actually have something to do with the Crystallizer. CL is claiming the weakness of the 16-bit format is in the dynamic range (which it is) and attempts to conquer that by trying to increase the apparent dynamic range with the Crystallizer. But we have LP's with LESS THAN HALF the dynamic range which sound better!

It's the same as with listening to tube amps, as opposed to solid state. There is a difference in natural even order harmonic distortion that the brain perceives as natural and real...it's something solid state does not produce. The human ear perceives even order harmonics (from live musical instruments down to tube amps) as natural and pleasing while odd order harmonic distortions created by solid state will be pointed out and hated. There has been several studies to verify this, even several documented subjective test researches verified people couldn't perceive distortion up to almost 10% THD when it was even order harmonic distortion from a tube amp and analog source, while the same people could instantly perceive less than 1% harmonic distortion produced by solid state amplifiers.
Click to expand...
Let's get something straight here. Even-order harmonics are not any more inherently "natural" than odd-order ones. Any harmonic distortion which is naturally created by an instrument is picked up in the recording process and WILL make it to the final CD. The increased even-order harmonics (often pleasing) that you hear in an LP are ARTIFICIAL ones, caused by the inaccuracy of the storage and playback method. You are hearing something on top of what the original instruments in the room, and recording sounded like. Again, this has zip to do with the Crystallizer.

Just simply listening to music on a computer should be the biggest hint to you that something may not be right in the first place. Please, lets not degrade this to even remotely resemble an argument where some one wanting pure music so from their CD player in their computer, that would be just plain silly.
Click to expand...
This remark is just plain ignorant.
Any design can be made into an extremely high-quality transport and playback system.
The computer is the EASIEST and CHEAPIEST way to achieve the highest possible quality. Using an IDE CD drive is a nearly ideal source; mechanical jitter is zero, quality converters can be used cheaply, expansion options are infinite. None of the same can be said of stand-alone players, even those costing thousands of dollars. Consider also that much of modern music is recorded and mixed using computers alone.

Now, on the other hand, listening to DVD-Audio or SACD will in fact provide a much cleaner and more natural sound, but as of now, you either have to have an extremely rare DVD/SACD player for your home stereo, or drive a new Audi with DVD-Audio or listen to it on a computer equiped with an Audigy 2 or newer sound card.
Click to expand...
Heh.
You will get a lot better quality audio from a CD and a soundcard which has a quality D/A stage than with a DVD on an Audigy.

What gets me is people are slamming CL because of the crystallizer that can be turned on or off at will;
Click to expand...
What people are slamming is not the Crystallizer itself but the false advertising around it, and the fact that everyone is jumping on it as the flavour-of-the-month. This is a nightmare to music producers.

while they themselves listen to CD and MP3 music they subject to dolby compression, just for the mere fact they are able to run an optical connection between their computer and their receiver. Now thats both arrogant and silly in my book.
Click to expand...
Optical connections can transfer pure PCM data. They're likely only transferring Dolby if playing back 5.1 surround.
Compression algos such as Dolby and MP3 are harmful to quality, but we all know what compression artifacts sound like; swirly highs, collapsed stereo imaging, etc. Crystallizer adds an additional "unknown" to the playback system. If you like it... ok... but the fact that I could mix a song and you will play it with Crystallizer on by default bothers me. You are not getting the song I intended, and you are messing with my mix significantly. I don't know if it's going to sound better or worse (probably worse), and neither do you, because you're not double-checking to see whether or not you should be using it on EVERY SINGLE SONG you play.
It's going to affect different material very differently.
 
BBA said:
Your completely right it messes with the dynamics, but in a good way.
Click to expand...
I have a lot more to say on this subject than I have time to write.
I see both sides of this argument, but not for the reasons Creative says. Overcompressed mastering is the evil Crystallizer fights (although it doesn't do it properly), not the dynamic range inherent in 16-bit recordings.
And on the other hand, if it was mastered well, without over-compression, you are really screwing the material up. You are adding dynamics that never existed in the original instruments even.

Your wrong as well, it does not mess with the tonality.
You should just listen for yourself before making harsh judgements.
Click to expand...
You should be more careful to check your facts.
In addition to the dynamics processing (which for a really stupid reason is done multiband, and only in the lows and highs, when it should be a single band), Crystallizer applies a STATIC EQ. That is called messing with the tonality. It also has nothing to do with trying to recapture any dynamic range - CL probably just added it (along with the overall volume boost) just to try to make the Crystallizer effect more immediately impressive. But then, the bass is louder in the mix than intended, the vocals are buried, and the cymbals are harsher and louder.
This is aside from whether you happen to think it sounds better on a particular song.
It wasn't the intended tonal balance of the song, because of the EQ going on. Therefore it is messing with the tonality.
Ironically though, a lot of cheap consumer gear (X-fi included?) and speakers do benefit from this type EQ, as they tend to be rather middly and not nearly as extended in the highs and lows as good speakers and converters.
Then again, a lot of 2.1/5.1 computer speakers have particularly boomy subwoofers, which is only aggrevated by the user's tendancy to turn up the sub way louder than it should be. The Crystallizer is going to make it even MORE boomy. Although, this may go ignored by the "impressive" clarity the high-end EQ boost also gives.

I have a feeling the Crystallizer sounds better when playing back at lower volumes because of the psuedo-Fletcher-Munsen EQ curve. I'd suggest calibrating your playback system to around 86db and A/B with/without Crystallizer then (compensating for the stupid volume increase it does as well).
 
BBA said:
IIf you look, you can find thousands of books and article written by audiophiles who claim both quantifiably and subjectively as to what 16 bit quantization does to the sound of music.
Click to expand...
Audiophiles are a bunch of crackers.
They rarely do proper blind ABX tests to validate their vast claims ($2000 power cables?) and often jump on the latest, expensive fad without any substaniative proof other than that is seems to sound better to them (usually because they want it to, and they turn up their volume a little higher).
I know precisely what 16 bit quantization does to the sound of music. When tracking individual instruments for a mix, 24 bits are a GOD-SEND! But in the final master, where we often see average levels of -5db RMS, it's almost utterly useless.
Don't get me wrong, there is some subtle (very subtle, especially compared to component upgrades) benefit to 24-bit masters, especially in quieter genres of music. So I'm all for the logical proliferation of 24-bit converters. But first of all, there are much more efficient places to be spending our money.
And secondly, this has nothing to do with the Crystalizer. It does not remove any quantization errors or lower your noise/THD floor at all. It raises the level of individual peaks in the high and low spectrums. That's it (besides that stupid EQ).

And there has never been any claim by CL that it does.
Click to expand...
Yes, there has. This whole technology is built around the supposed premise of increasing the dynamic range of 16-bit material.
In reality, it is just countering some compression with expansion. Nothing to do with the 16-bit format.


I do have a final comment. The Digit-Life article was not particularily well-researched and included some inaccurate information and approaches.
However, they were right to challenge the marketing surrounding this technology, because it is even more inaccurate than Digit-Life.
 
However, they were right to challenge the marketing surrounding this technology, because it is even more inaccurate than Digi-Life.
Click to expand...

Damnit.... where do I send the bill for cleaning the beer off my monitors? :p
 
I have a challenge - here are two audio files. They represent the same source. It's a CD, ripped with EAC (in secure mode, from brand-new media) to FLAC, and then I played with it. I converted it to wave, and then ran this program on it:
Code: 
#! /usr/bin/perl
my $bitstokeep = 0xFFFC;
sysread STDIN, $temp, 44;
print $temp;
while (sysread(STDIN, $chunk, 2048)) # 1024 samples
 {
  @samples = unpack("v1024", $chunk);
  foreach (1..$#samples) { $samples[$_] &= $bitstokeep; }
  print pack("v1024", @samples);
 }
This code takes the wave file, skips the header, and for all the samples, truncates the lowest two bits. See my reference in creating this. The challenge is this: Tell me which is processed, and which is the original by listening. It's relatively simple to figure out with a hex dump, but how many bits can *you* hear?

Sample A Sample B

 
Well, I could easily tell you which is which, but have to cheat to do it :)

I've experimented with running some popular pop tunes through a truncation to 6 bits. In most of them you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the 16-bit version and the 6-bit version even on the best of playback systems.
The CD-Audio format is really not so bad. It does not need processing to sound better.

All we need is a record industry willing to actually use the dynamic range that is already available on the format. Then, with less-compressed recordings, we could actually tell the difference between 6 and 16 bits... heck, maybe even between 8-bits and 16! :D
 
BBA said:
What gets me is people are slamming CL because of the crystallizer that can be turned on or off at will; while they themselves listen to CD and MP3 music they subject to dolby compression, just for the mere fact they are able to run an optical connection between their computer and their receiver. Now thats both arrogant and silly in my book.
Click to expand...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

why the fuck would anyone run an MP3 through DDL encoding? thats just fucking stupid. not only does it sound like ass, but the audio is positioned wrong, and the base doenst kick in nearly as much. you dont HAVE to encode to DDL with DDL cards, you know, optical TOSLINK and digital coaxial do pass pure PCM streams, and with a rip from audio cd->wav->flac, i get a perfect copy of my music.

DDL is for games, not 2ch audio or movies. movies passthrough their pure DD/DTS streams to the reciever unaltered through a digital connection.
 
dasbin said:
Let's get something straight here. Even-order harmonics are not any more inherently "natural" than odd-order ones. Any harmonic distortion which is naturally created by an instrument is picked up in the recording process and WILL make it to the final CD. The increased even-order harmonics (often pleasing) that you hear in an LP are ARTIFICIAL ones, caused by the inaccuracy of the storage and playback method. You are hearing something on top of what the original instruments in the room, and recording sounded like. Again, this has zip to do with the Crystallizer.
Click to expand...


Your post makes some sense except for that comment.

One, lets look at natural sounds: From what I have read, and I could be wrong, but I don't think I am: The Instruments and mechanical devices themselves (unless electronically altered) do not produce odd order harmonics, nature has this silly thing about even order harmonics.

Two: It has been proven in case studies that even order harmonics do not sound unnatural. while odd order harmonics do.

This is why records and other analog recording media have a more 'pleasing' sound than digitally recorded source media does. Wether they capture and reproduce the inherent natural even order harmonics or simply create their own, it DOES make a difference to perception. It is also why using tube pre-amps as the first stage of microphone coupling devices produces a better sound than even the best electronics input devices.

But, my second point is what you seem to be taking exception to, is that correct? If so, I am sure a quick google search can clear that point up for you.

Not to belittle your experience but being a recording studio engineer really doesn't mean much to me. I know many 'recording engineers' who think 'boomy bass is where its at'.

Now, someone like myself, being an electronics technician who actually learned theory; who actually designed and built amplifiers for a hobby; one who has spent thousands of hours listening to every little nuance claimed by thousands ranging from 'professional audiophiles' to mere hobbyist, tends to make one a little better for judgement on a perceptual topic such as this. But thats just MY opinion, and I don't mind if YOUR opinion differs, doesnt change a thing.
 
lithium726 said:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

why the fuck would anyone run an MP3 through DDL encoding? thats just fucking stupid. not only does it sound like ass, but the audio is positioned wrong, and the base doenst kick in nearly as much..
Click to expand...

They do it because they only have an optical connection to their receivers and they want to listen to more than just bit accurate CD's and DVD's, mostly because they have immense MP3 collections on their hard drives.

They also do it to (gasp) use their receivers built in digital signal processing to 'enhance' the sound to their liking. (Was a big topic here a while back that pretty much verified that)
 
unhappy_mage said:
I have a challenge - here are two audio files. They represent the same source. It's a CD, ripped with EAC (in secure mode, from brand-new media) to FLAC, and then I played with it. I converted it to wave, and then ran this program on it:
Code: 
#! /usr/bin/perl
my $bitstokeep = 0xFFFC;
sysread STDIN, $temp, 44;
print $temp;
while (sysread(STDIN, $chunk, 2048)) # 1024 samples
 {
  @samples = unpack("v1024", $chunk);
  foreach (1..$#samples) { $samples[$_] &= $bitstokeep; }
  print pack("v1024", @samples);
 }
This code takes the wave file, skips the header, and for all the samples, truncates the lowest two bits. See my reference in creating this. The challenge is this: Tell me which is processed, and which is the original by listening. It's relatively simple to figure out with a hex dump, but how many bits can *you* hear?

Sample A Sample B

Click to expand...

Sounds like crap, no natural smoothness quality to the sound poor choice in source and poor choice in processing.

But, in both cases, the crystallizer did make it sound more pleasing. :)

Question is, what are you trying to prove? That the dynamic range of sample A is different than Sample B or that it's not different?

To me, neither music file has much dynamic range to speak of, sonically makes the point irrelevant, but it would make sense the first recording is not as compressed as the second based simply on file size you cant mistake when downloading.
 
dasbin said:
All we need is a record industry willing to actually use the dynamic range that is already available on the format. Then, with less-compressed recordings, we could actually tell the difference between 6 and 16 bits... heck, maybe even between 8-bits and 16! :D
Click to expand...


I agree with that statement, except we also need less global feedback, less IMD and better speakers. :)
 
BBA said:
Question is, what are you trying to prove? That the dynamic range of sample A is different than Sample B or that it's not different?

To me, neither music file has much dynamic range to speak of, sonically makes the point irrelevant, but it would make sense the first recording is not as compressed as the second based simply on file size you cant mistake when downloading.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? They're *exactly* the same size.
wc -c Sample*
3145728 SampleA.wav
3145728 SampleB.wav
Give me a better sample, and I'll give you a better test. What I'm trying to prove is, you can't hear 16 bits of sound anyways, so how is "expanding" it to 24 going to help?

By odd order harmonics, I take it we can accept this definition? Then the "odd order harmonics" for a C are defined here. It's not until the 7th harmonic that you get something discordant; a C an E and a G sound fine together.

Note that I have nothing against *recording* at 24 bits; the extra dynamic range will help when it gets butchered through a compressor. Much of what is claimed about extra bits, though, is snake oil - don't buy it.

 
BBA said:
This is why records and other analog recording media have a more 'pleasing' sound than digitally recorded source media does. Wether they capture and reproduce the inherent natural even order harmonics or simply create their own, it DOES make a difference to perception. It is also why using tube pre-amps as the first stage of microphone coupling devices produces a better sound than even the best electronics input devices.
Click to expand...
Well, this isn't actually the case.
The most renowned and sought-after "classic" microphone preamplifiers in the recording industry are in fact solid-state. API, Neve, SSL, Sony, etc. Much of the same applies to signal processing. Yeah, the LA-2A is the common exception, but (seemingly strangely!) it is the common "clean" compressor choice whereas the warm/"vintage sound" choice is the solid-state 1176!
It is in the design of the gear itself, not whether it is tube or not, that determines its sound and where any harmonics lay. High-end tube designs typically used in studios are in fact designed and optimized for as little harmonic distortion as possible - including even-order distortions. If you want to add a bit of pleasing even-order distortion, a specially-tuned solid-state VCA or FET can be just the trick. And on the flip side, it can also be made to be just as clean as the tube design.
I am still totally unclear as to what any of this has to do with the Crystallizer.

Not to belittle your experience but being a recording studio engineer really doesn't mean much to me. I know many 'recording engineers' who think 'boomy bass is where its at'.
Click to expand...
I should first clarify that the only reason I mentioned my profession was not to try to bolster my comments, but rather to provide information in case someone was wondering how and why I happen to know about this subject.
I've never spoken to an AE who likes boomy bass, and I've spoken to a lot of AE's. Carefully calibrated, tight bass seems to be a widespread desire in the industry. I find your remark strange, although of course certainly not impossible. I have a feeling, though, you may be conversing more with wannabe rap/hip-hop engineers if they like "boomy bass."

Now, someone like myself, being an electronics technician who actually learned theory; who actually designed and built amplifiers for a hobby; one who has spent thousands of hours listening to every little nuance claimed by thousands ranging from 'professional audiophiles' to mere hobbyist, tends to make one a little better for judgement on a perceptual topic such as this. But thats just MY opinion, and I don't mind if YOUR opinion differs, doesnt change a thing.
Click to expand...

:) Thanks for the (unintended) ego boost. I do electronics work as well and learned quite a bit of the theory. Most of my studio gear is built by me.
 
unhappy_mage said:
What are you talking about? They're *exactly* the same size.
wc -c Sample*
3145728 SampleA.wav
3145728 SampleB.wav
Give me a better sample, and I'll give you a better test. What I'm trying to prove is, you can't hear 16 bits of sound anyways, so how is "expanding" it to 24 going to help?
Click to expand...

Honestly, the sample A took me longer to download, must have been the connection and I didnt check the sizes, thanks for correcting me.

The expansion to 24 bit doesn't do anything for the sound, per se, as claimed it's a transparent upsampling. What it does is give the ability to record the crystallizer effects without compression.

Besides, why are we even concerned with talking about dynamic range in the first place?

As for the CD format:
What I have said and will say is the artifacting in the quantization process. The 16 bit CD format was a compromise of sound quality and space on disc, remember, when the CD format was first introduced, that was the big argument, there was not enough capacity to record a full length album without compressing the sound files and the resulting loss of sound detail. As such the 16 bit 22.1 khz format was adopted, but not loved. It had dynamic range, That was the big selling point, and aparently, your still sold on it. BUT: back in those days, dynamic range meant very little if you were over 75 db in the first place. It was a moot point to those who wanted all the sound. The CD was a both hated and loved.

Now, the SACD and DVD-Audio formats are the only digital formats where nearly everyone agrees you don't loose any sound detail from analog masters. I wish those formats were more popular, it sucks only having a few ti
tles to chose from.
 
BBA said:
What I have said and will say is the artifacting in the quantization process.
Click to expand...
What is this mysterious force you keep mentioning?
Seriously, please state specifically what "artifacting" is occuring to the typical waveform and why.

And no, "lots of audiophiles say it happens" does not count as an explanation.
 
BBA said:
The expansion to 24 bit doesn't do anything for the sound, per se, as claimed it's a transparent upsampling. What it does is give the ability to record the crystallizer effects without compression.
Click to expand...

OK, so if a song being played through your X-FI has 20db dynamic range (and that is being generous), and the Crystallizer expansion adds another 10db dynamic range (and that is being VERY VERY generous, as that much expansion would sound like crap), we have 30db useful dynamic range.
We hardly need the 144db of 24-bit to use that 30db to its fullest potential.
I'm going to go right out and claim that Crystallizer would sound exactly the same at 16-bit as it does at 24-bits, unless for some reason you just like to listen to dither noise instead of music or something. BTW, it's not upsampling. It's adding another 16 empty bits to the bottom of the signal. These bits will remain empty unless the dynamic range of the existing material is so crazy and quiet that the Crystallizer's expansion actually pushes it down by a bit or two, though I can't really see any practical case where this would occur.

The biggest joke of all in the Crystallizer is the 96Khz upsampling. This hasn't even been mentioned yet.
 
It's not adding to the total dynamic range.

You need to stop thinking in terms like that, it adds to the attack slopes of the bass and treble by analyzing the input and adding to the signal in the processing.
 
dasbin said:
What is this mysterious force you keep mentioning?
Seriously, please state specifically what "artifacting" is occuring to the typical waveform and why.

And no, "lots of audiophiles say it happens" does not count as an explanation.
Click to expand...


If you don't know what basic terms such as Quantization mean, you have no bases to make any arguments in this discussion.

But...just for you, I'll give you a link that actually kind of explains it.
Quantization and data compression

Quantization plays a major part in lossy data compression. In many cases, quantization can be viewed as the fundamental element that distinguishes lossy data compression from lossless data compression, and the use of quantization is nearly always motivated by the need to reduce the amount of data needed to represent a signal.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(signal_processing)
 
dasbin said:
And no, "lots of audiophiles say it happens" does not count as an explanation.
Click to expand...

Dasbin, unhappy_mage, you guys both seem to know a bit about audio and what you are talking about.

So I must point out you are talking to yourselves. I don't believe BBAs claims at having heard all these audiophile setups, or even being an engineer.

He says that his X-Fi + a $50 set of Sony headphones are the "perfect" match, as an engineer that has spent "thousands of hours" listening to audiophile and hobby gear he has come to the conclusion that a $180 sound card and $50 Sony cans running the Crystalizer is Audio Nirvana. Please.

So yeah, you aren't going to convince BBA of anything, but it has been an interesting read coming from Dasbin, give a good perspective on audio gear.

More likely this is just an attempting to justify the purchase of an X-Fi to himself, for weeks now he has been the biggest cheerleader for the X-Fi, even saying people that don't buy it are just "too cheap" and can't afford it, which is amusing when you read that listening to $350 headphones and a $300 amp :p
 
BBA said:
If you don't know what basic terms such as Quantization mean, you have no bases to make any arguments in this discussion.

But...just for you, I'll give you a link that actually kind of explains it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(signal_processing)
Click to expand...
No, see, the problem is, that's not what I think of when I see quantization. It's more the first thing on that page:
In digital signal processing, quantization is the process of approximating a continuous range of values (or a very large set of possible discrete values) by a relatively-small set of discrete symbols or integer values.
Click to expand...
BBA said:
What I have said and will say is the artifacting in the quantization process.
Click to expand...
I don't even think that makes sense. You say artifacting? In any case, here's my attempt at a rebuttal. When data is quantized (converted from analog to digital), some of it is lost. And you can't get it back. Any attempt at "reconstructing" it is making up data. Whether it sounds good or not is a different topic, but it's an attempt to create something from nothing.

As for why I brought up dynamic range, it might have something to do with this:
BBA said:
The CD 16 bit compression and quantization really does remove a lot of detail from music
Click to expand...
in post #10. This is your callout; if it's so obvious, tell me which is so much more awful. If that's not a good enough test, let me know and I'll record something in 96/24 and then downsample it to 44.1/16 and you can try the double-blind yourself. It'll take me a while (I'd have to go home for that, because I live at college and don't have my equipment here) but I think maybe that's a good enough test.

Thanks for the compliment, Svperstar; I know I'm working on a brick wall here, but even bricks give up eventually. And I wish I had the $300 amp and $350 headphones you talk about - my setup here at college is under $50 for the whole path. Even on my good setup, I can't tell the difference, though - good luck to anyone who tries the test.

 
Svperstar said:
So I must point out you are talking to yourselves. I don't believe BBAs claims at having heard all these audiophile setups, or even being an engineer.
Click to expand...


So, thats what it comes down to...the svpster personally attacking BBA.
Thats a typically used political tactic when there is no refuting fact.

BTW: Svpserstar, I was making front page news of this very website back before you even joined, and for what might you want to ask? For modifying a motherboard to create the first dual coppermine CPU motherboard just to prove it could be done. No, I don't know anything about electronics I guess.

Hers is a suggestion: You just keep on in your little la la land and stay out of my threads if all you have is a personal attack to contribute.

I don't think I derserve your insluts when all I am doing is trying to clarify a highly misunderstood topic and give a good technology the attention it deserves.

Mods, it may be time to lock this, things are turning ugly awefully fast.
 
unhappy_mage said:
You say artifacting? In any case, here's my attempt at a rebuttal. When data is quantized (converted from analog to digital), some of it is lost. And you can't get it back. Any attempt at "reconstructing" it is making up data. Whether it sounds good or not is a different topic, but it's an attempt to create something from nothing.
Click to expand...


I was referring to the process of quantizing the analog signal to 16 bit cd format digital data, the losses the process results in and the incorrect reproduction of the anaolg signal when it is converted back to analog.

I agree any attempt to reconstruct the missing data is making up data that is not in the original source.

That does not make the crystallizer technology any worse than listening to the CD in the first place, there is information in the music that was incorrect from the original in both cases and I am not saying it's a bad thing in either case.

Thats my point.
 
BBA said:
I don't think I derserve your insluts when all I am doing is trying to clarify a highly misunderstood topic and give a good technology the attention it deserves.

Mods, it may be time to lock this, things are turning ugly awefully fast.
Click to expand...

I thought you had me on ignore, guess not.

Anyway, it has been pointed out to you time and again the Crystalizer is just a gimmick that upsamples and accents certain things but overall it just distorts the sound, claiming it produces better than CD quality out of an MP3? Right.

This has been the concensus of pretty much everyone that has looked at it in detail, it has been pointed out to you over and over.

If you really want better audio, why not get a Benchmark DAC-1 and some good speakers or some high end headphones? Distorting your audio and using a pair of cheap headphones is not the way to go if you want quality.

You have been defending the X-Fi against anyone that even suggests it might not be the audio Holy Grail you make it out to be for weeks, the emotional investment you have in the card is just staggering and I don't understand it.

Look at it another way, someone walks up to a bunch of professional drag racers and starts spouting off on how their Civic with a bunch plastic glued to it and a modified exhaust is so fast................it is laughable at best.

Also I see no reason to lock the thread, but it is amusing that you are the one that has had threads locked in the past.
 
I gave you the benefit of a doubt and took you off my ignore. Everyone says stupid things every once in a while, so I gave you another chance.

Now I am certain I was wrong to be so forgiving. You are now permanently irrelevent

As for making posts about the crystallizer, you will go off second hand criticism rather than actual explanation from the technical groups that coded it, then claim your so smart.

Ok, I am trying not to laugh.
 
Pointing out that there are better solutions in other threads than the X-Fi for music is "saying something stupid". Ok.

BBA said:
As for making posts about the crystallizer, you will go off second hand criticism rather than actual explanation from the technical groups that coded it, then claim your so smart.

Ok, I am trying not to laugh.
Click to expand...

Anyone can read the "technical information" about the Crystallizer, my question still stands though. Why not get a good external DAC, good amp, good headphones. Or just get a good high end speaker system?

This is a much better way to get better music than play around witha gimmicky feature added to a box to move some soundcards.
 
Svperstar said:
Pointing out that there are better solutions in other threads than the X-Fi for music is "saying something stupid". Ok.



Anyone can read the "technical information" about the Crystallizer, my question still stands though. Why not get a good external DAC, good amp, good headphones. Or just get a good high end speaker system?

This is a much better way to get better music than play around witha gimmicky feature added to a box to move some soundcards.
Click to expand...


Damn ignore feature didnt work. :D

I have a pretty good entertainment system already. Not connected to my computer, and probably will never connect them anyway.

A picture if you want to see...just in case you think I made that up too.

http://www.billhunter.net/house/images/fam 1.jpg

Ah...success at last, the ignore feature started working, I actually had to click the 'submit' button...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top