|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.167.97.239
In Reply to: RE: The recording sounded "dull, flat, dim, not as vivid"? posted by HiFiOd on September 03, 2015 at 11:35:37
If you had to choose between one of the two, which one would you take? Modern life is full of such choices.Fresh fruit is live sound. Analog playback is squeezed juice. Digital playback is juice from concentrate. Which one do you choose? I'll take the one that tastes the freshest. If digital tastes best to me then so be it.
Edits: 09/03/15 09/03/15Follow Ups:
A live microphone feed is better than any analog recording. A high resolution digital recording or a 30 IPS wide master tape are both essentially as good as a live microphone feed. Both are better than any consumer analog formats. The difference between the master tape and the digital recording is that the cost of the analog medium may be $75 while the cost of the corresponding digital media will be one hundred times less.44/16 digital is technology that is 35 years old and totally obsolete. Its only value is to collectors of musical performances that had the misfortune to be recorded in this unfortunate format and to people looking for $1 bargains in thrift shop bins.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 09/04/15
That may be true, but do modern hi-rez recordings really sound gobs better than well-recorded CDs do? Does state-of-the-art modern hi-rez sound 1% or 5% or 10% better than the best CD playback?
How much better depends on the quality of the original recording. I'm not prepared to put a percentage on sound quality. When down converting my studio master analog transfers to 44/16 I no longer waste any time "optimizing" the resampling to this format, because it is so clearly inferior, regardless of the settings. Given the choice, I would never listen to a 44/16 recording if a higher resolution format was available. Given that there is no extra cost associated with distributing the higher resolution format there is no excuse for new recordings being issued in 44/16 format and not higher resolution.
I'm more interested in music than in sound quality, so I am not inclined to repurchase remasters of recordings that I already have on CD unless they are quite special. However, I am quite happy to pay a 25 percent premium for high resolution new releases, especially if this supports record labels and artists that I like, and in some cases I have paid up to a 100% premium when I was pretty certain of the musical and sonic quality. However, I listen to acoustic music, mostly classical and jazz. With heavy studio production there may not be much benefit from higher resolution formats since it is likely that the heavy post-processing involved has already destroyed any hope of good quality sound.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
nt
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: