|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.236.230.55
In Reply to: RE: About digital recording of analogue sources posted by beppe61 on December 18, 2014 at 04:04:14
There are some examples of "good digital" but everything is relative, no? It is easier to make the statement, most vinyl and tape like cassettes sound good, or even very good. I listen to cassettes a lot and they cannot be beat by good digital for air, pitch control, correct tonality, and "realism" if you know what I mean. I have some cassettes that are digitally remastered and they sound quite good, indeed, but still they do not have that certain undefinable something that straight analog cassettes have in spades.
Edits: 12/18/14Follow Ups:
Hi yes i agree and actually my idea is to test a digital recorder copying a good sounding analog
For instance about the Korg DSD recorder i read of a test recording the signal from an LP in dsd
The copy was quite ok but the soundstage a little shrinked
But what interests me most is the cd format
I am sure that if a recorder can record nicely with this format it should be also a nice player.
And i do not think that must be necessarily ultra expensive. Just well designed and built.
Thanks again,
Kind regards,
bg
"WARNING: The music on this Compact Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment prior to modern noise reduction techniques. This Compact Disc preserves, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording, but it's high resolution also reveals limitations in the master tape, including noise and other distortions.";-)
Edits: 12/20/14
Agree with your comment about cassettes. Good ones can not be transferred to 44/16 digital without loss of quality. The differences are obvious. Less so at 176/24. Results are similar for 7.5 IPS tape.
I did fair comparisons: digitize cassette at 176/24, convert via software to 44/16, convert back to 176/24 and compare the two 176/24's with each other and with the analog original (Nak CR 7. Recordings were low speed cassette copies of reel to reel master tapes.) I used iZotope SRC for the conversions and tried many different settings to see if I could get tonal balance, imaging and lack of digital glare. There were settings that got close on 2 out 3 of these, but it was like squeezing a big balloon into a small suitcase. No go.
Bad cassettes that were multiple generations in the cassette format, high speed dubbed, stored under bad conditions or played many times on cheap, dirty or magnetized equipment were another story.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hi and thanks for the very interesting information
I cited you words that sound like a final judgement on the format
So the cd format has no hopes to be truly musical
This is very unfortunate for me as almost all of my collection is on CDs
It is a matter of fact that the pro format DAT is a 16/48k
So it seems to me that also the pros had judged the cd format not enough
I feel that even this little increase in sampling rate could make a difference
Again i am very sad that the world is stuck with this cd format
It does not respect the music in the end
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg
CD format can be perfectly musical. However, it will seldom be transparent, namely the same recording made in a higher resolution format by the same people with the same care is going to sound better. If the conversion to 44/16 is done well the differences are going to concern the realism of the reproduction. The music generally comes through OK. To me, it's musical if you can tell that the musicians were grooving and if noise, distortion and other artifacts aren't annoying.
Given that almost all new recordings are made in high resolution and converted down to CD format, there are no extra production costs in offering downloads at high resolution. There are extra server costs for storage and bandwidth. Delivering a high resolution download at 176/24 uses about six times more internet bandwidth than 44/16, representing about $0.25 vs $0.04 in server bandwidth charges at today's rates. These costs are less than credit card processing costs.
There is little reason for absurdly high prices for high-res new releases. Some of the better download sites are introducing their new releases at the same price for all formats because of these economics. There is justification for higher prices for new high resolution digital remasters of older analog recordings, because doing a high quality remaster takes expensive equipment and engineering talent.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hi and thanks again and i am fully aware now
As i have noticed cd was not enough for pro even in the old times
They ask for 48k for DAT
I am very sad if i think that i have only cd
But my new dac can process also high rez so i could buy some files and listen for myself
Speaking of dat. Do you think that the little difference can gain something for sound quality ?
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: