|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.95.153.236
In Reply to: Studio components best for Hi Fi - here's why posted by benhen on February 15, 2007 at 14:55:48:
I agree, but not for the reasons you list. The original recording in the studio sounds better because it's exactly that....the ORIGINAL RECORDING. I have my own studio and I can take the digital master, make a direct copy to CD or to DVD audio and it always sounds worse. Even thru the same electronics and speakers/cans. Every generation degrades sound quality.
Follow Ups:
Maui:If you were to press a record from the master is it still going to sound worse as well? Or were you making a commentary of the effect of using a digital storage medium? (I just noticed that your example only included going to digital storage media.)
Or are you just saying the master is always better than whatever you use to distribute it?
I thought DVD-A or SACD was a "not bad" way to go from a master to a consumer copy. How much *worse* are we talking here?
In any case comparing the sound of a master to the final medium is indeed very valuable information in my mind.
I wonder how much (if at all) this is done?
Can't answer that from a first person perspective as I have no way here to press a vinyl record, but I would guess that yes, the sound would degrade. But then you would have vinyl playback systems that vary, turntables, phono cartidges, RIAA curves in pre-amps, etc that would make a direct A/B comparison moot. But yes, there is a pretty noticable difference from the direct master to ANY copy. How bad is it? Not horrible. Hard to explain, really. It's just not as exciting...doesn't sound as live or as real, if that makes any sense. If you remember the MFSL original master records, it's almost as big a difference as going from the MFSL to a standard pressing of the same material. The MFSL was generally better...but how do you subjectivly quantify the sound as better? What was it about the sound of the MFSL that was "better"? It was closer to the source recording.....but how does one put the differences into words, yeah? You could say the bass was better or the top end smoother but really, it's just closer to the original recording.
Maui:Okay, I can buy that.
So what is your opinion on analog masters versus digital masters?
My way of thinking the best thing to do with analog masters is to either press a record, or use at LEAST 24/96 to sample it.
For digital, of course, simply transfer the 2-channel digital mix in its native format (24/96 or 24/192) to DVD-A.
I am not knowlegable about what happens when you take 24/96 masters (for example) and convert them to DSD or SACD.
I would definately fall into the "no conversion is best conversion camp".
I still think 16ips reel to reel was highly under-rated! :o)
I wonder... are most digital masters 24 bit 96 or 192 khz PCM/LPCM? That seems to be a very common assumption...
Your right. Open reel machines ARE under-rated. That old Pioneer Open Reel machine....RT 909 maybe? That was an amazing sounding piece. You can still pick one up on E-bay cheap. I'm an analog guy. I don't like digital. Most musicians prefer analog. Most engineer's however, prefer digital. Why? Editing. Piece of cake with a digital product. Not so with analog. Digital is less costly too. You can buy a Tascam 24 track digital recorder for $799.00. Price a 24 track 2" wide tape machine and you'll understand why digital is so prevalent.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: