In Reply to: RE: About depth of field with digital posted by beppe61 on May 8, 2015 at 22:35:52:
Hi,> It has been important for me to realize that soundstage depth is
> always the result of some kind of digital processing in the D to A
> conversion.This is not correct. Soundstage depth is inherent to the recording. But in the case of flat "pan-pot stereo" recordings, it is possible top create the illusion of "more space" using low level reverb.
Good recordings contain good spatial rendering in themselves.
So called "Digital glare" has many reasons, though most are actually analogue.
As for that turntable, it shall remain nameless, however the design resulted in minute speed variations with varying needle-drag from varying levels cut in the LP, so very high levels would slow it down a tiny amount compared to quiet passages.
Equally, running a tape or LP slightly fast (meaning the pitch is slightly sharp) seems to give greater energy and excitement, in the old Days many DJ's used this by always playing music pitched slightly sharp. I certainly did.
Thor
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Edits: 05/09/15
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 01:50:40 05/09/15 (9)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - TBone 09:12:21 05/11/15 (1)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 18:17:49 05/11/15 (0)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 05:33:41 05/09/15 (6)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 06:30:30 05/09/15 (5)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 06:50:14 05/09/15 (4)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 21:58:27 05/09/15 (3)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 00:54:44 05/10/15 (2)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 11:09:14 05/10/15 (1)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 13:29:15 05/10/15 (0)