|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.179.181.85
In Reply to: RE: Digital vs Analog? posted by hyperz_lol@hotmail.com on December 31, 2011 at 06:17:54
there are very few true digital recordings most of the time its tracked to tape and then to digital because the transient artefacts clip the digital signal too soon.
Follow Ups:
"there are very few true digital recordings most of the time its tracked to tape"
That was true years ago but not now. Almost nothing is tracked analog these days.
ProTools dominates the recording industry.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Tre is correct: almost everything is tracked to digital. Sometimes the 2-channel mix will be bounced to tape, either for its unique compression, or its "head bump" EQ, or for what it does to an image, particularly with small ensembles, jazz, or a vocalist with a couple instruments. I once saw an engineer bounce the mix to a Studer A80 just to run it through the Studer's electronics.
BTW, many of those 180g vinyl pressings we buy have been through digital at some point.
re: 24/96
No, you probably won't hear any difference between tracks at 16/44.1 and 24/96. However, if you start with 16/44.1 tracks and start editing, adding fades, EQ, reverb, or compression, you will hear it quickly degrade. I made that mistake once - it almost sounds like it falls apart.
WW
New Orthophonic High Fidelity
"then to digital because the transient artefacts clip the digital signal too soon"
Huh? Please 'splain.
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: