|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
118.148.152.85
Prompted by the recent threads on the preference for old DACs which then deviated on to quality of old Digital Filters and the evils of upsampling....
I was wondering how many people do their own digital recordings and have compared the recordings to the original through their DAC when assessing the quality. I have a Benchmark ADC1 USB clocked from a Grimm CC1 and do my own recordings. I also have several DACs. So I can make an objective comparison between the DACs and the original source.
I am often amused when I hear subjective opinions where words like "air", "ambience", "emotion" and "rhythm and pace" are thrown around when listening to a commercial recording. Yet, unless said reviewers were present in the mixing room that produced the recording, I fail to see how any of these judgements can be made!
Mic placement, mastering etc all play a role in the final product you play so how can anyone realistically comment on the amount of "air" "ambience" , "emotion" without ever having been present at the recording session!
I'm both a musician and an electronic engineer so I know what realism actually is... and I know how to engineer the equipment to do so. I actually find that the technical capabilities of a well engineered DAC to be essentially transparent even at very reasonable prices (with the lateset advancements in technology). Certainly any deficiencies are nowhere near as obvious as some of the comments I read would suggest. Even on very modest equipment.
I read one comment where it was stated that the individual had yet to hear a DAC that could reproduce an orchestra properly.
In response to this, I would say that a recording of an orchestra has an artificially enhanced detail of the solo instruments. If you are sitting in the audience you won't hear the first clarinet or first violin with the same clarity. Also every hall has its own specific acoustic signature. Some of which needs to be tamed (churches for example!). If the recording was made "as you would hear it" I'm sure people would complain that the DAC lacked detail...or had a diffuse soundstage...so in fact it is customer expectation that drives the mastering process!
In reality, opinions are being based on artificially created effects and a synthetic soundstage.
Live recordings of Stan Getz can make his horn sound terribly bright - after seeing videos I now see why! The idiotic engineer placed the mic right at the bell opening. Sound does NOT come "out" of the bell people! A standing wave is set up in the instrument and the bell shape of a saxophone or clarinet is to correct for pipe end effects.
Which makes this endless search for "realism" (based on a commercial recording) whether it be from an analogue source or digital a bit Quixotic..
Fair comment?
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Follow Ups:
My guess:
Audio and its playback (via equipment) has moved in a particular direction. Despite modern DACs (possibly) being "superior" in some ways, you might value the general musical presentation of past eras.
I can understand someone preferring a denser, less ambient, less overtly detailed, more rhythmic approach to music reproduction than the DS converters of today. I can also understand how someone could the aspects of reproduction that can be explained using visual terms - those that are frequently touted by the US audio press - of detail, sound staging and spaciousness, which seem to be popular at the moment.
Cheers.
“As long as we have any intention to be right… we should be wary. So long as words have the slightest ego attachment, they are dishonest.” Charlotte Joko Beck
I have been enjoying the diverse views expressed on this thread!
We all seem to want the same thing - natural realism. The question is how we can achieve that and how do we measure it?
I just wonder whether perhaps we should change the name for our hobby/equipment from "Hi FI" to something that implies realism and not technical accuracy to the original recording. It seems that the recording engineer's ability is what largely dictates the outcome.
My point is that technical perfection has been achieved quite a while ago, and that "upgrading" the recording (rather than the equipment) would seem to be both more cost effective and promote greater enjoyment of the music!
Which then begs the question of what metric you would use to clarify the "musicality" of a device....
Imagine the ads..."10% better realism than the next leading brand...."
Cheers
Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I, for one, am happy to pass. I have no interest in recreating recordings accurately. As you, so correctly, point out, many engineers get it wrong.
I have been in many studios and the signal is run through miles of cheap wire and cheaper op amps, faders and other crap. I would prefer my, quite flawed, home recreation of the recording not sound like that. So, as anti-hifi as it sounds, I want my-fi, colored as a Gaugin painting. The quest is only Quixotic if you are on it, Pancho.
if you want a good laugh go over to the cable asylum
As this very thread shows. People who do this sort of thing for a living disagree over objective measurements, so it's no surprise that one persons "perfect" is another persons "WTF is that crap".Your ears, your rules, and despite what some people think nobody has a "golden ear".
Edits: 04/18/14
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
All of these are routinely applied to electronics of all kinds - amps, preamps, transports etc. - and also speakers.Frankly, to me, all of these is just a fancier way to say "it sounds good", and I don't think it makes sense to try tracing it to original musical event.
Edits: 04/17/14
Thank you for posting this. It is great to hear from someone who is in the business and can see both sides. Making music and recording it. It is very educational to me. I wish I would have known this information a long time ago. It would have saved me mucho dollars obsessing over what equipment sounds best...
My personal position has long been that audiophiles who only play recordings and have never made them are second class citizens who lack a solid grounding in the technology of reproducing music. It is not necessary to be in the business, nor is it necessary to spend a lot of money to get started making recordings. (It does help to be a musician, married to a musician or to have musician friends, but unless one is a hermit or curmudgeon musician friends won't be hard to find.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There is no magic or a particular set of 'technology' in making recordings. What is needed is the DESIRE for good sound quality and an understanding of the science behind what one is doing.
I have heard TL's recordings which he put on the web. They are clean, but the Creative gear he used came thru. In others words, clean but not particularly 'musical' to my ears or concert life like.
"I have heard TL's recordings which he put on the web. They are clean, but the Creative gear he used came thru. In others words, clean but not particularly 'musical' to my ears or concert life like."
You must have a different definition of 'musical' than I do. Perhaps you can explain what you mean.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I hear the digital glare from the Creative hardware, near 1 D presentation etc. With Piano music, stage properties are more forgiving.
If you are familiar with the sound of run of the mill adaptors compared to high quality ones, you will know what I mean. The cheap and nasty coupling capacitors they use, plus the 741 origin opamps with loads of negative feedback affect the sonic signature a lot.
Interesting. I ask about "musicality" and you reply about "digital glare".
As to depth, there should be none on the studio recordings. They were deliberately made to have as little ambiance as possible. The intention was that they would sound like a piano in the listening room to the maximum extent possible. The concert recordings have depth, particularly those made in Jordan Hall, which is one of the finest small halls around.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Digital glare=not musical. Pianos don't have hf glare.
The semantics in your post is revealing.
No high frequency glare when I play back these recordings on my system. Perhaps your system needs to be better voiced if you are hearing high frequency glare.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"1 D presentation" or "flat" is a perfectly apt description.
Edits: 04/18/14
'sound like a piano in the listening room to the maximum extent possible.'
This is not a rational argument. Put a piano in a room and there will be ambience. Put it in an anechoic chamber perhaps. But why?
Play the recording in the room in which it was made and there will be ambiance. The ambiance is created by the listening room. It will not be the ambiance of a concert hall, unless you have a concert hall for listening room. If the speakers used have good dispersion then the resulting sound field will be similar to that of the live instrument in the listening room. This works quite well if the listening room is large enough to plausibly contain the instrument and if the actual recording venue is also used for playback, the results can be quite realistic.
This technique is well known. It was used for the successful demonstrations of live vs. recorded sound done by Acoustic Research in the 1960's, where they used a string quartet. (The recordings used for made outdoors.)
I repeat my comment about the necessity of making recordings to understand the process of sound reproduction.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
No one really lives in a house that has a separate "Concert Hall " like listening room, unless
of course your economic bracket,allows you do so. For certain genres of music the recorded
"They are here" listening perspective really does'nt serve the music.
It is much easier to set up a listening room to act as an "extension", or limit the effect the room has, on the recording, than to "create a complete listening enviornment" that never existed.
While "Recording Engineers" should be respected for their knowledge & skills , I think certain
modern recording techniques bear much further scrutiny in favor of older recording perspectives & techniques that resulted in countless exceptional recordings
I don't think you really understand the pyscho acustics of sound reproduction in a room. It is hopeless to try to mimic a concert hall especially since a piano played there will be recorded and processed to the taste of the recordist.
In any case, an instrument played in a room should not have a 1D sound stage or contain digital glare (artefacts)
" It is hopeless to try to mimic a concert hall especially since a piano played there will be recorded and processed to the taste of the recordist."
I am not going to waste any more time arguing with you Fred, because you don't seem to be capable of understanding what I write. You put words in my mouth that I never said and never would say.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I was thinking about this thread. There is no way (baring lots of money) to reproduce what I heard there in my "listening room". Close is all I can ask for, which includes a taste of the space where the recording was made. However, if it had been recorded to TL's standards, minus the "ambiance" of the venue which was quite awesome, "flat", "this sucks" and "boring" would have been the result.Taking your ball and going home really does make the case that your ears suck despite whatever technical proficiency you claim to have above all others.
You have an informed opinion, that is all.
Edits: 04/21/14 04/21/14 04/21/14
I hope I made it clear that recordings made to transport the musicians and their instruments to the listening room will not work for large ensembles unless the listener is a billionaire and owns a concert hall. Given that pipe organs are generally huge and would never fit in a home, it would be stupid to record a pipe organ without ambiance.
The exception might be a small portable pipe organ. Here's a picture of my favorite. This one was intended to be used outside, so recording with no ambiance would be appropriate. To hear a recording of this organ follow the linked video, starting at 42:15. The movie includes brass, as well... Enjoy :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
of well recorded music are listening for the "ambiance" of where the recording was made.
"I repeat my comment about the necessity of making recordings to understand the process of sound reproduction."
Yeah, we get that, but are not sure if you do.
I think it is a case of 'belief' based on 'conviction'.
LOL. You are barking up the wrong tree here to discuss musicality. The gentleman listens to the zeros and ones that incidentally emanate from his software and hardware.
Hey, its Friday.
rarely anything constructive; just noise
........that you come of sounding like a pompous ass! If you consider audiophiles who play recordings but never make them second class citizens you most certainly need a reality check.
I'd go a lot further with my opinion of you Tony, but The Bored would probably ban me.
Al
Both with digital (portable DAT) and open R2R tape decks. Recordings were mostly of solo violin in relatively small rooms, violin and cello in a medium sized concert hall, violin and piano in a music studio and private residence and string quartet at live concerts.
In addition, through the generosity of a canadian engineer, I received a fantastic recording of Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet that was recorded with a single stereo ribbon microphone at a distance of about 6 meters from the front of the stage. It fits well with the same piece of music i heard live at approximately same distance.
The best were the solo violin on R2R of the 24 Paganini caprices...presence like i have never heard on a commercial recording...even though a bit dry its pretty stunning.
"The best were the solo violin on R2R of the 24 Paganini caprices...presence like i have never heard on a commercial recording...even though a bit dry its pretty stunning."
About what I would expect. Successful amateur recordings are often better than commercial releases in sound quality. This is a direct function of the minimalist production practices which, when it works, produces the best possible sound. Unfortunately, at least in my experience, this production process doesn't seem to work reliably and hence this is a problematical process in a commercial situation where a business is paying the musicians and is going to lose lots of money if a recording has to be trashed.
In addition, commercial recordings are made to be played back on a variety of systems and at a variety of listening levels and sometimes are deliberately butchered (mastered) to achieve what the producers think is necessary, i.e. reduce things down to a mediocre quality. It's the rough edges that make a recording sound natural on a good system, just like the rough edges in a concert hall situation. The rough edges come through on a cheap system as rough edges, but the natural aspects are gone, hence the more polished (lower quality) recording seems better on these systems.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
What you hear in a live orchestral concert depends very much on where you are seating. If you sit in the far back of the hall you won't hear that much detail. If you sit in the first row you will get a tremendous amount of detail, a very wide soundstage, and precise ability to hear and distinguish individual instruments. (I recall being amazed when I heard a Kodaly piece performed in Orchestra Hall in Philadelphia as a teenager.)
The same applies to recordings. If you have heard a recording made with a minimum number of microphones you will get a good approximation to an orchestral perspective created by the engineer who placed the microphones. There will be a more or less wide, and more or less deep sound stage and there should be a natural balance of tonality, which like a live performance will change a certain amount with position.
If you have the misfortune to have a multiple multiple microphone recording made with many channels and later mixed down to stereo, then you will have garbage, with absolutely no hope of recreating any kind of reproduction of the original performance, except of the most superficial cartoon cut-out variety. The particular choice and illumination of the various popups will depend on the whim of the technicians who are twisting the dials and they aren't likely to be musicians.
By listening to a wide range of recordings made with various techniques it is possible to learn how to figure out what was going on when the recording was made. With this in hand, one can then listen to a variety of recordings on a particular playback system and make intelligent comments about various aspects of realism, including "air" and "ambiance". I will leave the other aspects of "emotion" and "rhythm and pace" out, since these are purely subjective and personal and don't relate directly to the sounds one hears.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
That is precisely why I still prefer my Mercury Living Presence and Shaded Dog LPs when playing full orchestra. They do have their flaws, but I still get the feeling that the real thing is coming through. My favorite digital orchestral recording are Telarc and Decca. I know that the Telarcs are recorded simply, but I don't know much about the Deccas. Of course my opinion is slanted by the fact that these are were the great performances are too. I know that Telarc likes to drag out the old warhorses, but there is some very desirable stuff there. Decca has incredible variety.
Dave
I know what you mean - it requires someone who understands not only the technical aspects but the artistic requirements of what they are doing to achieve the best recording. Sadly it seems to be a dying art and all too often a wonderful performance is ruined by an insensitive recording engineer.
My point is that many audiophiles are getting caught up in an endless search for something that doesn't necessarily exist (depending on the recording) when the technical performance they require is already available to them with their existing equipment.
"Detail" seems to be something which they crave which these days is easily achieved in very modestly priced equipment. When I say "they" I'm referring to audiophiles who aren't really that interested in listening to the music, but rather they want software to listen to the equipment.
In the meantime, they feel compelled to upgrade their equipment when in fact it is the recording they should be upgrading!
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
"I was wondering how many people do their own digital recordings and have compared the recordings to the original through their DAC when assessing the quality."
I don't do that, but I often use the vinyl version of the same recording as a sonic reference.
This has been a very interesting source of comparison for me too. However, remastered CDs compared to the original LPs can give you considerable differences. It depends on how much "freedom" the remastering engineer has been given!
I made the comment on the Blue Note Reissues thread in the Vinyl Asylum that the remastered CD of Getz Au Go Go appeared to use a completely different mix to the original 1964 LP! The music is the same, but the inter-song applause and background noise was different for some tracks.
Needless to say, I loved the original LP more because I have been familiar with it since I was a little boy!
Sometimes the CD ends up being better than the LP when they fix up some of the blemishes...
That's really my point - it comes down to what pleases us rather than technical perfection.
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
[I am often amused when I hear subjective opinions where words like "air", "ambience", "emotion" and "rhythm and pace" are thrown around when listening to a commercial recording. Yet, unless said reviewers were present in the mixing room that produced the recording, I fail to see how any of these judgements can be made!]In my opinion and experience, such descriptions often refer to certain psycho-acoustic and subjective sound effects produced by a given recording, reproduced by a given audio system within the context of a given listening room. In fact, I've heard systems which greatly tend to manifest certain psycho-acoustic effects, such as those you list, almost irrespective of the recording. I agree, that one can rarely know whether certain perceived sound effects are accurate to the original recording session. However, one can observe whether such effects are simply occurring to one's own listening perception, accurate or not. Let's not forget that stereo sound reproduction in the home is an illusion. A falsehood, likely never to be totally accurate to the original acoustic event anyhow. I'm quite happy to simply achieve verisimilitude, a believable illusion.
Subjective terms such as "air" can't really be defined without using other subjective terms, therefore, universally understood definitions for such terms may not be possible. For example, to me, the subjective term "air" means that the stereo sound exhibits a characteristic of openness, one where instruments and voices seem spatially quite separate from each other in all three-dimensions. This is opposed to sound which seems closed-in, or congealed, or collapsed to mostly two-dimensions. Now, while my description of the term may, understandably, leave you feeling quite unenlightened about what I perceive, that doesn't necessarily mean that this subjective effect is not a real psycho-acoustic phenomena. The big challenge for audio test and measurement, it seems to me, is not in further resolving decimal places of harmonic distortion percentage, but to find objective parameter quantifications which correlate well enough with the subjective listening perception to accurately predict it.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 04/16/14 04/16/14 04/16/14 04/16/14 04/16/14 04/16/14 04/16/14 04/16/14 04/16/14 04/16/14
Yep, I agree - the goal is to create a convincing illusion of the live performance.Is it impossible? Oh yes, but we tilt at windmills, because the more convincing and natural it sounds, enjoyment increases considerably! And enjoyment is the most subjective of all!
I find describing things like "air" "punch" "bloom" "warmth" "coolness" etc. are just a common vocabulary used to describe how things might sound. It isn't subjective per se (generally if I find the sound "warm" you will too if you know the long form description of that use of word), but whether you find "warm" enjoyable or not is where subjectiveness creeps in.
And the aspects of the sound that mean more to someone in creating "reality" may vary. Some may love the tonality and textures of the tones, some may be attracted to dynamics more than tone, and so on. And if you can't do it ALL in a system, I think this is where taste comes into play.
============================
Hey! I have a blog now: http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.com or "like" us at https://www.facebook.com/mancave.stereo
Edits: 04/16/14
I was of course being deliberately provocative in my opening post which I'm glad has been taken in the right spirit.
I understand your definition of "air" etc.
I agree with you - what we are saying is that when listening to a recording, (technical) Fidelity and Musical Enjoyment are actually two different things.
When we listen to a recording, we are after an emotionally satisfying "illusion" of sound. Technical accuracy is actually quite secondary to this.
My problem comes when people attribute an emotionally satisfying result to be (by definition) to be more accurate/faithful to the original recording and THAT is the bit I struggle with.
I know as a clarinettist that if you are not in the correct frame of mind EVERYTHING about what you are doing seems "awful" all the way from the reed to the tone quality etc. I have spent countless hours shaving my reeds, reprofiling the mouthpiece etc. I think the same applies to hifi.
It wasn't until I started doing my own recordings that I realised that technical fidelity is actually reasonably easy to achieve (with a bit of technical knowhow and money). At that point I realised that I was wasting my time Tilting at Windmills for a perceived flaw in the TECHNICAL reproduction when in fact much of the time the flaws are either in the recording, or in the case of vinyl, actually due to flaws in the cutting process and so I realised that the journey (for sonic perfection) had largely ended since we have largely arrived there with hi-res recordings. Any other discussions around digital filters, DACs (as in the conversion principle) seems rather petty in comparison to what we used to have to put up with in the past!
I love Modern Jazz and classical music - my father left me a legacy of original pressings from the 50s and 60s. My mother is a retired music teacher with a huge collection of classical records all the way from the 50s to the 80s. Many older recordings are rather distorted, lack the bandwidth of a modern recording, but it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the music and I know my equipment is faithfully reproducing every single distortion, tape flutter or fake "enhanced stereo" from those records that used that awful technique to enhance mono recordings from the 60s!
Regards
Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
This re-enforces, what I suggested in my Metrum review. That the most enjoyable DACs for music may not be the same as a recording engineer would want to use. It could be that a typical recording engineer does not have time to listen emotionally or must record or process many times the bits and loses less bits w/ certain types of DACs.
Edits: 04/22/14
So called, NOS, for A/D conversion (meaning, I presume, without an anti-alias filter) is a huge no-no on relatively low sample rate recordings - such as CD standard. Any ultrasonic frequency input above half the sample rate will be aliased down to unpleasantly appear within the audio band. A recording having a native sample rate far enough above the input signal frequencies (such as with DSD) is essentially self band-limited, and so can do without the usual sharp anti-alias filter.This has not so much to do with whether the ADC is sigma-delta based or not (although, they all are today).
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 04/22/14 04/22/14
"It could be that a typical recording engineer does not have time to listen emotionally or must record or process many times the bits many times and looses less bits w/ certain types of DACs."
The typical recording engineer is only interested in how fast his cash register spins. He produces garbage if the producer tells him to and justifies this as "I have to pay for my studio and support my family". He is more interested in a "fast workflow" than quality sound. This is the rule, but there are exceptions. Good engineers love music and love sound and they do not suffer compromise or blindly follow orders. They take the time to get it as good as they can and they walk away from business and customers who are trying to turn them into prostitutes.
Knowledgeable audiophiles know the good engineers by name and go out of their way to purchase their recordings. This has been true since I started in Hi-Fi in 1960. Back then the names were Robert Fine and Lewis Leyton. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"the journey (for sonic perfection) had largely ended since we have largely arrived there with hi-res recordings"
I have a Mytek dac for "HiRez", An Audio Note transport and dac for redbook and a Basis/Rega/Ortofon turntable for vinyl. After a year of buying "Hi Rez" downloads I now listen to vinyl 70% of the time and redbook CD's 30% of the time. I no longer purchase downloads or listen to them. I get no musical enjoyment from them and feel they are a waste of money. Will probably sell the Mytek. Just my opinion of course. I was a professional recording engineer from 1963 to 1983 so I know what I enjoy. Tubes and vinyl
Alan
That's my dream job - I always wanted to be a recording engineer!
I would be really interested in your view regarding recording techniques over the yearse - it is my view that for all the advancements in technology, the recording techniques have either been lost or changed in such a way that the modern recordings have lost the character of some of my old favourites.
My mother has an original 1961 CBS (stereo) pressing of Stravinsky Conducts and you would never think of it as being an "old" recording. The realism still astounds me. Many modern recordings do have a very sterile quality to my ear. ECM recordings of solo piano works can have a very stark sound.
BTW When I say "we've arrived" in terms of Hi-Res, I mean in terms of technical accuracy. I am trying to archive my vinyl digitally (at 24/96) and I find that gives me a good facsimile of the vinyl (which is what I enjoy most too). Although I admit, that part of it is the ritual of playing a record...and the memories associated with them.
So in conclusion, is it really the recording techniques that are to blame rather than "hi-res" itself?
Regards
Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
When I started all the equipment was tubes. Neumann mikes with built in tube pres, ampex tube recorders, custom built consoles with tube pres and tube line stages, monitor amps were altec tube amps. When in 1970 we went all solid state a lot was lost. Early digital sounded good in the studio but the cds of our masters sounded nothing like what the masters sounded like. As far as engineering goes we only had three track early on so most recordings were done with everybody at once. Very little overdubbing. This was great training to record full bands and orchestras. No, will fix it later. that is why many of todays best recordings are done by the old timers Also overdubbing everything loses all spontaneity of performance. Oh well got to go, have some vinyl to listen to
Alan
and B&K instrument microphone to compare real voice with recording. It was life-like but voices have limited bandwidth and it is the high frequencies that suffer phase and other distortions when recording at effectively 141/2 bit that tells the pictures. All the descriptors about air and so on apply to CDs and earlier PCM recordings.
Fascinating! Thanks for sharing that. Gosh I have so many questions I would love to ask..
Just out of interest when you referred to the digital masters being better than the CD versions, what was the sample rate and bit depth of the master, or are you referring to the multi-track version?
I'm just trying to understand where the flaws crept in. I'm wondering if the dithering or sample rate conversion algorithms in the early days were to blame for the inferior sound - it's only when I started experimenting with different dithering and noise shaping options that I realised that there were many different ways to get to the final result, but with some variation in the sound. Some more successful than others. The more successful combinations make for a surprisingly good result where I couldn't honestly say whether I was listening to the original 24/96 master or the down converted version when coming into the room blind.
Regards
Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
This was the early days of digital. On am talking about the 2 track master which was at 16/44. There was something in the manufacturing process that degraded the sound. Also when we compared we were playing the master back on the studio digital recorder while the cd was played back I believe on a Phillips cd player.
Alan
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: