Comment by duped
3 hours ago
You often want sample accurate waveform visualization when tuning samples that are time or pitch warped to set start and loop points at zero crossings to avoid clicks without needing fades.
3 hours ago
You often want sample accurate waveform visualization when tuning samples that are time or pitch warped to set start and loop points at zero crossings to avoid clicks without needing fades.
Overwhelmingly, there's no such thing as a zero crossing. Your closest real world case is a point in time (between samples) where the previous sample is positive and next one is negative (or vice versa). However, by truncating the next sample to zero, you create distortion (and if the absolute value of the preceding sample is large, very significant distortion.
Zero crossings were an early myth in digital audio promulgated by people who didn't know enough.
Fades are always the best solution in terms of limiting distortion (though even then, they can fail in pathological situations).
There's definitely such thing as a zero crossing, it's where sign(x[n-1]) != sign(x[n]) (or rather, there's "no such thing as a zero crossing" in the same way there's no such thing as a peak). Picking a suitable `n` as a start/end point for sample editing is a judgement call, because what you're trying to minimize is the difference between two samples since it's conceptually a unit impulse in the sequence.
I don't think people who talk about zero crossings were totally misguided. It's a legitimate technique for picking start/end points of your samples and tracks. Even as a first step before BLEP or fades.
Theoretically, it makes sense (go look at any of the diagrams of what a "zero crossing" is online, and it totally does.
The problem is that sign(x[n-1]) != sign(x[n]) describes a place where two successive samples differ in sign, but no sample is actually has a value of zero. Thus, to perform an edit there, if your goal is to avoid a click by truncating with a non-zero sample value, you need to add/assign a value of zero to a sample. This introduces distortion - you are artifically changing the shape of the waveform, which implies the introduction of all kinds of frequency artifacts.
Zero crossings are not computed by finding a minimum between two consecutive samples - that would almost never involve a sign change. And if they are computed by finding the minimum between two consecutive samples that also involves a sign change, there's a very good chance that you'll be long way from your desired cut point, even if you ignore the distortion issue.
It really was a completely misguided idea. If the situation was:
then it would be great. But this essentially never happens in real audio.