 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.67.99.189
In Reply to: RE: I question the premise posted by John Marks on April 22, 2014 at 09:39:43
...is: Your system lacks sufficient resolution to detect the HF information present. If actual listening had been inviolved, the listener perceiving nothing there would probably be characterized as too unskilled to detect the low level information. ;-)
Follow Ups:
So then it becomes, the playback tape deck and the ADC used in remastering were not good enough.
Whereas in truth, the gear at the session in 1956 was probably, RCA ribbon mics, a three-channel mixer derived from radio broadcast gear, a very early mono tape recorder, and tape stock from before the tape-formulation revolution of the mid-1960s.
A cynical friend says, that recording sounds so good because it does not excite the resonances usually found in dome and inverted-dome tweeters.
An inexpensive DAW program (I have a Mac so I can use the Mac-only package Amadeus Pro) can be a great educational tool.
JM
The bass frequency plot only shows a dynamic range for the various signal frequencies of approx. 16 dB.
If one looks VERY closely, it would be difficult to see anything much below about 30-40 dB down from the maximum signal displayed, as the thickness of the bottom most lines of data (one pixel above 0.00 volts) would only be about that low in level.
In point of fact, if any signals were below -40 dB, they would be invisible on the 2nd plot.
Linear amplitude plots are the refuge of a trickster or someone who has something to hide. Just my opinion.
Jon Risch
So, the recording in question was made in 1955.
I do not know where in NYC it was recorded, but I think that it is safe to say that it was an early mono tape recorder with an early high-noise tape stock, and most likely an early three-to-one mixer modeled on radio station gear. RCA ribbon mics were the rule in most commercial studios then; German condenser mics were available but very expensive.
So I do not think that my assertion re: the absence of content as opposed to tape hiss it totally off base--as pertains to this recording. I would not say the same thing about the stereo recording of Debussy's La Mer with the Boston Symphony.
As far as the resolution of a graph goes, sorry, Amadeus Pro does not have a "Vertical Zoom" control for the Spectrum function the way it does for main view.
I never said that there was no signal there, I merely offered the opinion that the music was lost in the tape hiss. Which is why Ray Dolby started down the road toward solving that problem.
JM
...the comments were somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Regarding the technical sufficiency of 24/44.1, hasn't the market already spoken on that one?
As I recall, the most recent Beatles vinyl rereleases were cut from 24/44.1 digital masters. As I recollect, the reviews tended to be quite critical of the sonics and most of the criticism tended to center on the 44.1 sample rate. IIRC, M. Fremer was ambivalent about them and A. Dudley pretty much declared them a fraud. Some around here claimed that the USB flash drive version sounded markedly better than the vinyl because it was done at 24/96. Turns out the flash drive was also 24/44.1. I hear rumors that the Beatles vinyl is going to be released again but this time from something higher rez than 24/44.1 Perception (or expectation) is everything.
The sample rate used for cutting the Beatles LPs in my opinion matters FAR LESS than the capabilities of the DAC used to create the analog signal that was embedded in the vinyl.
My recollection is that they used what I would call a "budget" DAC.
Not what I would call a "respectable, professional-quality, no-excuses-based-on-budgets" DAC.
And SURELY not a top-shelf, competitive-with-the-best-out-there DAC.
I have the current (recently upgraded) version of the Bricasti M1 DAC in for a follow-up, and it makes 44.1 sound sublime.
JM
...just about everyone knows the bit rate and depth used for the Beatles reissues. Just about no one knows the "quality" of the DAC used. I'm aware of no review of this release that atrributes its substandard sound quality solely to the DAC. Most mention bit rate/depth, right or wrong. If the rumor of yet another vinyl reissue is true, do you really believe a 24/44.1 master would be used again with only a higher quality DAC? I don't. Sure, a better DAC will be in the chain but so will be an advertisably higher sample rate, technically warranted or not.
I'm not disputing the possibility that objectively, 20-24/44.1 is fully adequate for most consumer grade music, only that the market probably won't accept it regardless of technical merit. After all, this is the hobby that on the fringes embraces magic pebbles, system correcting cell phone calls and faith based cryogenics.
...the very same DAC that ALL of the reviewers gushed about for years. Now it is described as decidedly mid-fi and unacceptable for all but the most pedestrian of listeners.
You simply cannot trust what is written about most gear nowadays - today's magnificent darling is tomorrow's mentally challenged, red-headed stepchild...
-CD-
...I didn't realize the Benchmark had fallen from grace so much as to be considered mediocre mid-fi. And some people wonder why high end audio appears to be in a bit of a decline. But I guess that still reinforces my point: perception IS reality in the consumer market.
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
