sirmonkey wroteLook, if you get upset that your tire pressure is 32.086 psi instead of 32.0000000 psi, go ahead.

Hell yeah. If it's 32.00000000000000001 it's already a fail. Sod my ears it's the maths that make it annoying.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but any level change would create artifacts since a level change essentially is distorting the original waveform, thus introducing artifacts.

If you take a worst case scenario using a sinus wave and you change the level from negative infinity to 0dB, when the sinus is at its peak, you have essentially created an infinite ramped signal, causing harmonic artifacts.

Depending on the automation resolution, speed of level change and the input signal, the harmonics levels would always correspond to the input signal with a fixed ratio to the input signal frequency.

The only way to eliminate this distortion completely is to change levels only at zero-crossing. Good luck with that...

roblof wroteSorry if this has been mentioned before, but any level change would create artifacts since a level change essentially is distorting the original waveform, thus introducing artifacts.

If you take a worst case scenario using a sinus wave and you change the level from negative infinity to 0dB, when the sinus is at its peak, you have essentially created an infinite ramped signal, causing harmonic artifacts.

Depending on the automation resolution, speed of level change and the input signal, the harmonics levels would always correspond to the input signal with a fixed ratio to the input signal frequency.

The only way to eliminate this distortion completely is to change levels only at zero-crossing. Good luck with that...

Interesting you said that, I had a thread here about zero crossings and how to do that
https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopi ... 3&t=521929

The guy Max seems to know how it works, and rejected that in favour of some continuous smoothing. To keep each half period pure original signal seemed not to be enough as my idea was and doing small enough steps in level not to be audible staircase. That frequency content would remain to a larger part doing half periods changes and at zero crossings.

But how that relate to how it works on StudioOne is another matter.

It’s been quite a while since I read signal processing theory so I could very well be wrong, but I don’t see how changing the level at the zero-crossing could produce any additional harmonics.

I’ll see if any of my friends have some insight on this...

Nip wrote

roblof wroteSorry if this has been mentioned before, but any level change would create artifacts since a level change essentially is distorting the original waveform, thus introducing artifacts.

If you take a worst case scenario using a sinus wave and you change the level from negative infinity to 0dB, when the sinus is at its peak, you have essentially created an infinite ramped signal, causing harmonic artifacts.

Depending on the automation resolution, speed of level change and the input signal, the harmonics levels would always correspond to the input signal with a fixed ratio to the input signal frequency.

The only way to eliminate this distortion completely is to change levels only at zero-crossing. Good luck with that...

Interesting you said that, I had a thread here about zero crossings and how to do that
https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopi ... 3&t=521929

The guy Max seems to know how it works, and rejected that in favour of some continuous smoothing. To keep each half period pure original signal seemed not to be enough as my idea was and doing small enough steps in level not to be audible staircase. That frequency content would remain to a larger part doing half periods changes and at zero crossings.

But how that relate to how it works on StudioOne is another matter.

Reality is some DAW's (e.g. Ableton) are dead silent artifacts wise when doing major level changes. What are they doing that is right? They are obviously doing something different here.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember that automation resolution in s1 is/was relatively low. If automation were to be sample accurate then less/cleaner artifacts should be created, but this will of course add to any cpu usage.

Taking a 20khz squarewave and automating a level change over 1s should show any steps produced.

This is just like zipper noise on digital preamps when changing levels. Those who employs zero-crossing changes eliminates any zipper noise.

Jemusic wroteReality is some DAW's (e.g. Ableton) are dead silent artifacts wise when doing major level changes. What are they doing that is right? They are obviously doing something different here.

roblof wroteCorrect me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember that automation resolution in s1 is/was relatively low. If automation were to be sample accurate then less/cleaner artifacts should be created, but this will of course add to any cpu usage.

Taking a 20khz squarewave and automating a level change over 1s should show any steps produced.

This is just like zipper noise on digital preamps when changing levels. Those who employs zero-crossing changes eliminates any zipper noise.

Jemusic wroteReality is some DAW's (e.g. Ableton) are dead silent artifacts wise when doing major level changes. What are they doing that is right? They are obviously doing something different here.

It could very well be the case - in the amount of modulation, sine and whatnot, they offer that this was necessity.
There is always a cost to offering flexibility - choice between cpu, features and quality.

But if like for midi we could just select this automation resolution - if that solves anything, it would be nice. If that might give less artifacts on ramps if we don't use all the other modulation stuff available.

roblof wrote
The only way to eliminate this distortion completely is to change levels only at zero-crossing. Good luck with that...

Well, whoever made the Ardour DAW obviously had all the luck, that is, unless you're making excuses.

sirmonkey wroteYou had better agree with Multifederal, because if you don't see this as a big issue, you're a hack!
And if you don't change your engine oil every 6 months, you're a hack! Because that's what "experts" say.
Expert marketers for oil companies, that is. Because you should base that on miles driven, and whether or not the oil is getting dirty. So the analogy falls apart pretty quick. Also, a tiny artifact on an audio fade is in no way equivalent to engine wear due to not changing your oil often enough. I mean, is this obscure artifact going to make your ears wear out? Is it going to damage your speakers?

Look, if you get upset that your tire pressure is 32.086 psi instead of 32.0000000 psi, go ahead.
Because if you don't worry about that, you're a hack! Your mixes will be terrible, and will sound even worse in your car!

What say I come and scrape a key along the side of your car? Are you worried about 'pristine' this time? Lol

Strawman arguments like yours with disingenuous rhetoric don't count as a rebuttal.

And while I'm here, we don't change oil based on whether it's dirty or not, we change it based on the average driving distance for most cars at around 6 months, which is roughly 7000miles, because the structural lubricants break-down after a given time and engine-wear ensues, not because it is so-called "dirty"

But hey, when you get cancer, don't listen to the " experts" to have a go at healing it, it's all a conspiracy lol

Or maybe you are actually a bona-fide hack!

I say again, we have a right to expect pristine fades from a top-flight DAW. If Ardour can do it, well hey

If it's audible then yes, they should prioritize changing it.

My earlier concern was the more common thing where many users see things in measurement tools that they actually never heard before seeing a measurement of it, and can't really hear in normal listening situations. There are lots of things we can see in digital measurement tools that are inaudible as a practical matter. Take note that nobody complained about it until that guy measured it, which means (?) nobody actually heard it.

But sure, if it's audible, prioritize it, smooth it out.

"Here you go"------> "thanks" ------> "popcorn, anyone?" -----> "thanks".....



"Broken down oil viscosity, anyone?" ----> "No thanks"

Lets not ruin a good discussion. Back to topic please.

Lawrence wroteIf it's audible then yes, they should prioritize changing it.

My earlier concern was the more common thing where many users see things in measurement tools that they actually never heard before seeing a measurement of it, and can't really hear in normal listening situations. There are lots of things we can see in digital measurement tools that are inaudible as a practical matter. Take note that nobody complained about it until that guy measured it, which means (?) nobody actually heard it.

But sure, if it's audible, prioritize it, smooth it out.

I completely agree.

Once, and only once, I heard varied audable differences out of Studio One 3.6, and that was in Projects. For reasons I can't explain, the ramped anomolies went away, based on my changing audio device settings.
In short, I "smoothed it out". That was only once that some unexplainable anomaly occurred.

I couldnt attribute those differences to tested sine waves, adding dither, or trying in the purest sense to understand why those dB fluctuations happened. While I'm hearing some back and forth test results from those making observations  (I certainly hope they aren't claims), it's seems to be more shooting at the hip, than controlled test analysis. There's certainly nothing wrong with chasing what you are effectively hearing, but the grappling with how and why could be quite vast. As mentioned, there's a multitude who haven't encountered this (thus far, anyway) while a s8ne wave is a pure tone (and I haven't heard much of at what frequencies), more complex frequencies, might produce different results, be dithered out, and against what noise floor, frequency filtering, bit rates, etc. Feel free to stop me. Moved on.

I'd be glad to share any findings, but until some level of testing includes common ground. Specified frequencies with several waveforms, analog i/o settings, and that info is confirmed, than the discussion is what it is.

Good luck though.

It wouldn't be the first time someone on You tube was trying to raise interest towards their findings, or website.

Sorry, admiral bumblebee.

Ardour is open source so feel free to scan the code to see how they do it and then come back and tell us.

multifederal wrote

roblof wrote
The only way to eliminate this distortion completely is to change levels only at zero-crossing. Good luck with that...

Well, whoever made the Ardour DAW obviously had all the luck, that is, unless you're making excuses.

multifederal wrote
What say I come and scrape a key along the side of your car? Are you worried about 'pristine' this time? Lol

Strawman arguments like yours with disingenuous rhetoric don't count as a rebuttal.

Wow. You bring up keying a car, and then accuse somebody else of strawman arguments?

How about you post some of your work, where this is an audible problem. And let us have access to the project. Even a hack could easily deal with this.

multifederal wroteWhat can be more important than our audio? In the digital world we expect no anomalies, only the ones we introduce on purpose. In a 64bit double-precision environment we expect 'pristine'. My fades should not be introducing distortion.

I find that a bit naive (with respect).
For example: I've grabbed a random bunch of my soft synths and played a ~50hz sine wave (G0) with them and automate its oscillator level or master volume from 100% to 0.

By only using my ears, good old trusty Massive v1 was clean as a whistle. Mai Tai was super clean too (should I say 'ironically'). However Melda's MPowerSynth introduced very noticeable artifacts, just like Steinberg' Retrologue. Also Halion 6 was not clear of artifacts. While Waves' Flow Motion performed average.

All artifacts would not be noticeable across the previously mentioned synths when I played a tone other than a pure sine wave. So the challenge for us is to know when certain tools introduce artifacts, so we can avoid those for certain tasks (or entirely).

For instance, I learned today I won't use some VST instruments for those ultra deep sub bass tasks I want to keep clean.

niles wrote

multifederal wroteWhat can be more important than our audio? In the digital world we expect no anomalies, only the ones we introduce on purpose. In a 64bit double-precision environment we expect 'pristine'. My fades should not be introducing distortion.

I find that a bit naive (with respect).
For example: I've grabbed a random bunch of my soft synths and played a ~50hz sine wave (G0) with them and automate its oscillator level or master volume from 100% to 0.

By only using my ears, good old trusty Massive v1 was clean as a whistle. Mai Tai was super clean too (should I say 'ironically'). However Melda's MPowerSynth introduced very noticeable artifacts, just like Steinberg' Retrologue. Also Halion 6 was not clear of artifacts. While Waves' Flow Motion performed average.

All artifacts would not be noticeable across the previously mentioned synths when I played a tone other than a pure sine wave. So the challenge for us is to know when certain tools introduce artifacts, so we can avoid those for certain tasks (or entirely).

For instance, I learned today I won't use some VST instruments for those ultra deep sub bass tasks I want to keep clean.

That was the most sensible reply so far


Anyway, these others claiming a certain level of immunity for S1 based on whether we can "hear" the anomalies or not, doesn't cut it with me. It's akin to saying... don't worry about a termmite infestation destroying your house, you can't see it, it's behind the walls😥

And they say... No one complained until someone exposed it. I thought common sense dictates when something is broken, it ought be fixed.


I've got a stonkingly powerful CPU, I don't care if a few extra CPU cycles are required to fix the issue! Please S1 developers, go ahead & fix it.

multifederal wrote My fades should not be introducing distortion.

I would consider a different way of mixing and gain-staging if my fades alone was introducing unwanted distortion.
my 2 cents.