In Reply to: RE: About depth of field with digital posted by Thorsten on May 9, 2015 at 01:50:40:
Hi and thanks again and sorry if i insist.
This is the point that interests me more, and actually i asked just this at the beginning ..." This is not correct. Soundstage depth is inherent to the recording.... Good recordings contain good spatial rendering in themselves. "
Perfect. Let's take an analog recording on tape or vinyl with an exceptionally captured and "natural" soundstage.
If i make a digital copy and play it back the soundstage will be intact ?
this for me is the acid test for any digital recorders and more in general AD-DA converters.
For instance i read of a guy doing this with an LP and a Korg recorder.
The copy had a shrinked soundstage. Narrower and flatter ... while the overall tone was quite ok.
This means to me that soundstage is challenging and it is an excellent tool to evaluate a playback system, analog and digital.
Actually i would do only this test.
Same room, same system, same excellent recording and different dacs.
The differences would pop up immediately.
The deeper the better ... i am sure of this.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
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 - 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)