Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: "it doesn't necessarily have to be a .flac file, could just a easily be a .wav file" - Exactly posted by Chris from Lafayette on July 11, 2017 at 15:50:29
if there is such a thing?
My freeware conversion only goes to 192 :-(
Do all these different formats really sound significantly different or are they small. For me it is still the original quality of the recording that matters. For example I really don't care for the sound of the Channel Classics recordings. The don't have the immediecy of for instance the old Decca, RCA and Mercury recordings. I think they are using to many mikes.Read a review of one of there recordings which said they used 17 mikes. Now it is really up to the mixer to create the sound they are looking for.
if they are truly lossless.
The real issue here is with the playback software you use, will it even play it, how much CPU time it takes to convert it to play, how much space the particular lossless CODEC takes on the hard drive, how much it can be compressed for streaming or downloading, etc.
They're very small - as I always say, it's like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (FLAC files are losslessly compressed, whereas AIFF and WAV are usually uncompressed.) And you're right that it is still the original recording quality which matters most, regardless of the particular incarnation.
Yeah, I like the old Decca, RCA and Mercury (and EMI!) recordings too. But OTOH, I believe that great recordings can be made with different microphoning philosophies, and, certainly (or at least IMHO), Channel Classics invariably gives us outstanding examples of their recording philosophy with each new release - really state of the art for their particular approach.
We can't possibly be defining state of the art dependent on what recording method is used? Can we? State of the art should be the absolute best, period!
You say that "State of the art should be the absolute best, period". And yet you also ask "We can't possibly be defining state of the art dependent on what recording method is used? Can we?". If we're talking about absolute best, then I guess we'd have to say that, yes, one and only one recording method must be superior. (Or, one and only one microphone set-up - or whatever.) I don't believe this myself, so I guess my definition of "state of the art" is not as narrow as yours?
I don't really disagree with you. There are a lot of great recordings out there. Having listened to tons of recordings and also recorded both multi mike and the 3 mike Decca tree method I think there are more great sounding recordings using 3 mikes than any other system. The move away from 3 mikes as the technology changed was the famous statement Will fix it in the Mix. Works sometimes and also fails sometimes. As far as multi mike recordings go I think Reference Recordings have done the best work.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: