The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Recording at 192K
Old 12th June 2005
  #61
Lives for gear
 

BTW, which microphones are you using that can record above 20 khz? The Pearl mics from Sweden and the Sennheiser MKH800 are said to go up to around 25 khz, and I think Schoeps says something about 40 khz.

If you're using pretty much any other mics than those listed above, I would like to know what the hell you're listening to? There may be nothing there dude! (<--- Note colorful use of the word "dude". We California wookies use it often.)

The open loop gain of microphone preamplifiers is another limiting factor. As frequencies go higher, this limits the ability of the mic preamp to produce as much gain as it can at lower frequencies.

So an interesting point may be this..... Extremely quiet material may benefit more from higher sample rates, but if you're recording some loud ass rock n' roll, what's the point. Does this make sense?

Unless one is using very specialized microphones and preamplifiers, I think your whole argument goes out the window. There is simply no audio information at 25 khz, even with most High End mics. Tell us what you're using that can capture these supersonic frequencies. Surely not a tube mic into a Universal Audio tube pre!

If anyone is truly interested in experimenting with these high sample rates, you'll need to invest in or rent some of those special mics and preamps. I've already listed a few mics. For pres I recommend the DACS Micamp and the Audio Upgrades High Speed Mic Preamp. The new Lipinski should also fit into this category.




Old 12th June 2005
  #62
Gear Head
 
danickstr's Avatar
 

well lets remember that to the layman, its not sonic frequency that is going up, it's accuracy by the number of points. a graph with 10 dots is not as accurate as a graph with 100 dots, once the line is not mathematically graphable, such as freeform music waves.

Since I dont understand how 2 points will tell me where a line should be drawn on the harmonic of a violin, for example, and i cannot visualize this, i am going to have a gap in the credibility that will always make me wonder if 192 offers something in the line of increased accuracy once the braintrust figures out how to process it with new tools.

or someone can explain it so that my monkey dfegad mind can understand how two samples per cycle can make an accurate waveform.
Old 12th June 2005
  #63
Lives for gear
 

I find it pathetic that people cling on to some old theories about this and that instead of listening to what the ears are telling you all. If you can't hear it, you can't (and it's sad), but I and many others can hear the differences clearly.
As a matter of fact I can hear the differences between sampling rates clearly even through some 25 year old hi fi speakers I use for reference.

To me 48 kHz has a "sound", just like old DAT's (don't touch em), I like to call it the "tv sound". Forget about mixing ITB at lower rates (unless you're after that special "tv sound" that is), forget about recording at these rates too (unless you send your **** off to some mastering guy with a mind for analog gear, maybe he can fix it later).

Even the Sony Oxford plugins that are known to be good at 48kHz can't shake off that cheap tv soundtrack sound completely in my opinion.
Old 12th June 2005
  #64
Here for the gear
 

i suggest you guys revisit dan lavry's forum where dan lavry, bob katz, nika aldrich and others pathetically cling to "old theories" . . . just like some still pathetically cling to the theory of evolution despite the new hot "theory of intelligent design" . . . the theory of intelligent design is like a digidesign 192 a/d and vice versa.
Old 12th June 2005
  #65
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
I definately noticed a big difference btw 96 and 192K ..mainly on acoustic stuff..strings gtrs,piano.. jazzy or folky stuff..
on Marshalls cranked to 11 or slammin rock drums?...I stick mostly with 48/96k

When I got my HD rig way back when..the 1st thing we did was record some acoustic sources together @ 96 and 192K. ..gtr,flute violin,piano i think..all tracked through good class A and mostly neumann and B&K mic's.
In blind listening on good monitors[mid sized westlakes] everyone thought the 96k sounded good ..
But when we played the 192 stuff back..it sounded more like the instruments were in the room right in front of us,very 3D ..pretty amazing
I've long since stopped 192,because for cranked rock n roll.. 96K is just fine
And yes I use lavry blues for that. Just my SFO stike
Old 12th June 2005
  #66
Here for the gear
 

yeah i find that an apogee ad8000 rocks at 44.1
Old 12th June 2005
  #67
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdigital
i suggest you guys revisit dan lavry's forum where dan lavry, bob katz, nika aldrich and others pathetically cling to "old theories"
Well Dan Lavry yes insists on measuring and not listening and has his theory which he passionately posts all around.

But if you read carefully Bob Katz has entirely different view on the subject.

I, in particular, am in the camp who belives 192k totally makes sense if you want the best and have good reasons both practical (listening) and theoretical to firmly stick to this for now.

I can also tell you that there is a number of other audio punduits with even bigger names who know 192k works better for them but don't want to waste their precious time to get publicly drawn in this controversy.

So if you talk about punduits there is no consensus on this.

Regards , Michal at Mytek
Old 12th June 2005
  #68
Here for the gear
 

ok. i can suspend my judgement listening-wise, what is the theory that supports 192?
Old 12th June 2005
  #69
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qtuner
I was recently asking a similiar questions about 192khz recording until I found the lavry article.

I'm not saying that you're ears are wrong, and it probably does sound better at 192khz. That leads me to ask why? Did the manufacturer make a compromise on the converter to get better sound at an ineffiencient sampling frequency. if there is no source material about the nyquist frequency why does it sound different at a higher sampling frequency? .
The problem with Dan Lavry argumets is that he basically is telling you " your ears must be wrong, look I have my scientific paper to prove it". On Dan's forum you are not allow to quote listening impressions because they are "subjective" and "unscientific".

But the good news is if you trust your ears, be assured you are not alone, you belong to the audio avangarde who actually do what they are supposed to do in this business ie make great sounding records. The end result of this business is sound quality (always subjective), not an "objective" measurement.

There is a number of very serious engineers who do not believe Dan is right.

My own theory goes as follows:

Bandwith is probably not what makes hi sampling rates sound more "natural" or "analog" if you will , it might be a bit, but hi-FS sound better also with material originating from 30k band limited sources such as tape.

So what it can be?- My (and not only mine) belief if that digital filters artifacts are much more audible than their loundness (-100dB or so) would suggest. They are particularly nasty because they are if form of nonharmonic distortion, preechos and alias modulation all of which do not exist in nature and I would not be surprised why our ears hear them so well first time since milion years of evolution and can't stand them (unlike harmonic distortions in tubes for example).

If these artifacts are the problem than you have two options:

1. Make filters better (IMO unachievable in ractice on large scale now because of amount of DSP and effort required vs. amount of software/hardware on the market)

2. Up the FS for existing harware and software. Filters at 192k are oraound 90kHz and have minimal impact on audio band. This is an easy and practical way around it which I'm trying to promote.

The problem with Dan's paper is that it sidetracks discussion to Nyquist (which nobody doubts) and brusshes aside filter issue and real world filter implementations.

I want to also say I write this not because we are competitors in manufacturing (Dan Lavry makes great converters) but because I simply believe he is wrong and his thinking and his paper is not thorough as a scientific paper should be.

Regards, Michal at Mytek
Old 12th June 2005
  #70
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mytek
2. Up the FS for existing harware and software. Filters at 192k are oraound 90kHz and have minimal impact on audio band. This is an easy and practical way around it which I'm trying to promote.

Michal at Mytek
PS. re 192k

I had very good experience with using 176.4k as a starting format for a series of multichannel orchestral SACD's I was the technical consultant for. 176.4k is almost as good as 192k, yet for all practical reasons takes a bit less space and processing and also translates more trasparently to both CD (44.1) and SACD (DSD) being a round multiple of 44.1k. The SRC and conversion algorithms are simpler and more transparent. We used 16 tracks of 176.4k mixed down to 5 surround plus 6th ceiling channel. Ossom results.

Michal at Mytek
Old 12th June 2005
  #71
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Forget about mixing ITB at lower rates (unless you're after that special "tv sound" that is), forget about recording at these rates too (unless you send your **** off to some mastering guy with a mind for analog gear, maybe he can fix it later).
Not buying it bros. Sorry. "176.4 khz is almost as good as 192 khz." I'd challenge anyone to hear the difference between these two.

I once thought that 96 khz has twice as many samples as 48 khz, so it should have a more accurate waveform. Turns out that sampling theory doesn't work like that at all. The waveform is interpolated and blah blah blah.

Also, I'm not saying that these higher sample rates might not sound better on some material. What I'm objecting to is the blanket acceptance that just because it's a higher sample rate, it automatically must be better.

I didn't hear anyone address the phenomenon of some converters having thinner low end at higher rates. I did not make this up, I've read about it on this very forum. (No, I haven't bothered to do extensive listening tests for this. Apparently it's more noticeable with some converters than others.)

When I have a project that is less than 16 tracks, I'll do it at 96 khz. I doubt I'll stray into the land of 192 khz until I change my setup completely. Not looking to do that any time soon. Certainly not because juicemaster1500 says I must!

Sure, you guys can throw sampling theory under the bus, but it's what was used as a guildeline to develop all converters up to this point, and still is. Pseudo science does not trump real science, at least not on paper.
Old 12th June 2005
  #72
Gear Head
 
danickstr's Avatar
 

well it must be true, he is quoting himself.

But in all seriousness, I want to believe whatever is true, and ears are the best thing for that. I don't have a bunch of top end converters to try this with, so I have to wait until I am in a position to A/B Prisms and Myteks and Lavrys at 176.4 and 88.2 and 44.1 all at the same time.

Has anyone ever done this test with an instrument that plays via a mechanical means, to further enhance rigid repeatability? Or does switching identical microphones feeds set equa-distant around a source do the trick as far as presenting a clear winner?

I have to rely on hearsay here I guess, since I am not going to buy studio time (or rentals) for this test and I have yet to see anyone commit to doing this test and posting the results on a website for people to play back at the higher rates.

Although I will point out that the creative E-mu series can playback 192/24, which would be less critical for listening than the record phase. I will go buy one for a hundred bucks if it can be set up to listen to this test. I really am curious about this aspect of recording not for today, but for the long term.
Old 12th June 2005
  #73
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdunn
Not buying it bros. Sorry. "176.4 khz is almost as good as 192 khz." I'd challenge anyone to hear the difference between these two.

I once thought that 96 khz has twice as many samples as 48 khz, so it should have a more accurate waveform. Turns out that sampling theory doesn't work like that at all. The waveform is interpolated and blah blah blah.()

Sure, you guys can throw sampling theory under the bus, but it's what was used as a guildeline to develop all converters up to this point, and still is. Pseudo science does not trump real science, at least not on paper.
Hi Jason

Please read my post carefully. I never question Nyquist or even talk about audio above 20 or 30k or so.

I talk about filter artifacts, which has nothing to do what acutal bandwitch the audio source has. Maybe I should be more clear. Please let me know what I should explain better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdunn

Also, I'm not saying that these higher sample rates might not sound better on some material. What I'm objecting to is the blanket acceptance that just because it's a higher sample rate, it automatically must be better.

.
It might not sound better, but that's a separate subject. If digital distortion help the sound of your particular record that's fine, but it's not the point here.

As for "automatically" what is "automatic" when people actually convicinly hear themselves improvement at 192k?

Regards, Michal at Mytek
Old 12th June 2005
  #74
Lives for gear
 

I think in the long term this discussion ( or argument or whatever) will be moot. 44.1 and 48 khz will likely go the way of 32 khz. Remember when converters had 32 khz as an option? You don't see that much anymore.

The chip makers will move past the lower rates as a byproduct of technological advancement. True, they'll still have to make cheap chips for cd players for a few more years.

In reality, I'm mostly with you guys on the higher sample rate thing. I'm just bored today, and for the sake of debate......... heh

I just did a project that was 18 tracks. Had it been 16, I might have done it at 96 khz. My Fairlight Merlin only goes up to 16 tracks of 96 khz because it only has one QDC card. Anyway, this project (recorded through Mytek ADC 8x96) certainly does not sound like "tv" or whatever.

There are so many factors going into this, such as quality of mic pres used, analog converter stages, etc...
Old 12th June 2005
  #75
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdunn
I didn't hear anyone address the phenomenon of some converters having thinner low end at higher rates. I did not make this up, I've read about it on this very forum. (No, I haven't bothered to do extensive listening tests for this. Apparently it's more noticeable with some converters than others.)
Yes, I can confirm this fenomenon. I'm aware of this and heard similar comments from few sources. Where is that post in gearslutz?

I'm currently trying to investigate this- it's not clear if high FS substract a tiny bit of bass or 44.1k adds a bit. Also it does seem to vary depending on converter, migth be something related to converter topology. No clear answer on that other than we are talking about very little diff if any with some boxes. I'll post more if I get a revelation.

Michal @ Mytek
Old 12th June 2005
  #76
Lives for gear
 

Michal - Not sure where those posts are, but I'll search. As I said, the one thing I did notice when playing music through the UA 2192 D/A was that the low end was very full.

BTW, your ADC's sounded great on my latest project! Everybody loved the sound. Now I'm trying to decide what to mix on, since I sold my Sony DMX console.
Old 12th June 2005
  #77
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdunn
I think in the long term this discussion ( or argument or whatever) will be moot. 44.1 and 48 khz will likely go the way of 32 khz. Remember when converters had 32 khz as an option? You don't see that much anymore.
..
I believe so. The arguments for more DSP or hard disk space will be moot within few years. I was in exactly the same discussions around 99 or so when people said 96k requires insane resources. If indeed 192k sounds better, people will eventually adopt it as it happened already with 96k irrevelant of Dan Lavry or my arguments, peoples ears will be the decisive factor in the long run.

Also not everything is for everybody. Most people are happy with 44.1k now and that's fine with me.

But it will be nice for some of our decendants in 100 years to pull out a master of a great record that isn't a 1630. My guess will be they'll be thankfull somebody though of using 192 or 176.4 or even DSD instead.

Michal @ Mytek
Old 12th June 2005
  #78
Gear Head
 
danickstr's Avatar
 

jason BTW I never thaked you for the southpark link. I have joined the phenomenon that has swept the Slutz avatar community...
Old 12th June 2005
  #79
Lives for gear
 

Nice character dankster! Kind rainbow vegan schwilly dankster that is. <---Hippie joke.

I can't find that thread by Joe of Universal Audio here. I think that's because the post I'm thinking of is over on (the evil heh ) Dan Lavry's forum.

Also, I don't know that it will be so much people's ears that will bring about the end of low sample rates. I think it's just inevitable that they won't include those lower rates on chips for much longer. It's the way technology is going. If the chip does 384 khz, they may need to get rid of 44.1/48 khz in order to optimize filters for the higher rates, as a necessity of design requirements.
Old 12th June 2005
  #80
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdunn
I just did a project that was 18 tracks. Had it been 16, I might have done it at 96 khz. My Fairlight Merlin only goes up to 16 tracks of 96 khz because it only has one QDC card. Anyway, this project (recorded through Mytek ADC 8x96) certainly does not sound like "tv" or whatever...
One more comment:

Some people are seduced to believe there is some magical FS at which everything becomes transparent like 60k or something. I just saw some posts like this recently.

In our observations (listening) at Mytek there is no such clear border and why should there be, when you really think about it?

As you up the FS the signal becomes more "analog" like (or closer to source) and looses the"digital" glassy and strangled character. 96k is better than 48k and 192k is better than 96k, but the improvement gradually relaxes. So upping FS endlessly would be a case of diminishing returns. 192k still seems like worth fighting for, at least to me. Some people already ridiculed DXD (352k/32bit promoted by Merging) but I wouldn't be so quick to dimiss it either (if you have the resources).


Regards [email protected]
Old 12th June 2005
  #81
Lives for gear
 

I hope you're not saying that you think your converters sound "glassy" below 88.2 khz. This is not my experience at all. The Crystal chip you use (CS5396) is also known to have very good filtering. Jim Williams still uses it for it's filters.
Old 12th June 2005
  #82
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdunn
I can't find that thread by Joe of Universal Audio here. I think that's because the post I'm thinking of is over on (the evil heh ) Dan Lavry's forum.
Evil or not, but how serious can you be when you ban _sound_ engineers from talking about what they hear? Some interesting topics ( I totally agree with Dan on clock issue for example), but overall it's too selective and too authorative for my taste.

M
Old 12th June 2005
  #83
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdunn
I hope you're not saying that you think your converters sound "glassy" below 88.2 khz. This is not my experience at all. The Crystal chip you use (CS5396) is also known to have very good filtering. Jim Williams still uses it for it's filters.
I'm just trying to use words to describe a charcter of sound most people perceive for example when they compare SACD master to is't CD version. Glassy, edgy, strangled are the words used.

This is all relative. It can be very glassy or little glassy depending who you ask. M
Old 12th June 2005
  #84
Lives for gear
 

Okay. Well, in comparing something I recorded with the Mytek ADC 8x96 @ 24 bit to the Miles Davis 'Kind of Blue' SACD, for example........ I guess I need better SACD D/A converters, because it's not doing a whole lot for me.

There's a weird distortion that I can't quite put my finger on. (Could it be the analog tape was old?). Maybe like I say, I just need to spend a few grand on D/A converters to appreciate the difference. So, is the D Master coming out before we all die?

heh stike
Old 12th June 2005
  #85
Lives for gear
 

BTW, I've found one particular Telarc CD that was made from DSD master. It is horribly shrill and bright and sterile to my ears. Trumpets that rip your head off!

I have to think that this CD might sound better without all the digital hoopla.
Old 12th June 2005
  #86
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
This thread is already going in the predictable direction: some people (no offense) who have read about 192 or have heard it on inferior monitoring systems are poo-pooing it, while those who have heard it on reasonably good systems are saying, well, i ain't no rocket surgeon, so all i can tell you is it sounds better.
How about those who have heard it on reasonably good (or more than reasonably good) systems and still think that 44.1 kHz sounds just as good, or even better?

And how can you say you've really heard "it" without separating it from all of the other factors involved?

Quote:
At 192, as with 30ips, you get more information to describe the signal at allfrequencies. So even midrange information, for example, will be roughly twice as detailed at 192 than it will be at 96. In other words, as sample rates increase, you're getting a more "round" and less "square" approximation of the original signal.
That's not quite how it works. True, if done properly a 192 kHz signal will have more "detail" and be more "accurate" than one done properly at 44.1 kHz, but all that extra information is is higher-frequency information. Once it's been filtered, whether by the filters in a converter or our ears, the audible frequencies will be no more or less accurate in either system. And the sound that comes out of a converter is not "square" at all. It's a "round" (sinusoidal) analog signal.

Quote:
Higher sample rates = clearer audio, just as cameras with higher megapixels counts can produce more detailed photographic images (all other things equal).
To a point...but of none of that extra detail is audible (or visible in cases of the photographic analogy) why bother?

Quote:
And many others won't say 44.1 sounds "better" than 192, but they'll say they don't hear a difference, and that could be because of the source material, the recording signal path, the converters used, the playback system, the physical condition of their ears, or - trump of all trumps - their conditioned personal taste and other quirks of their human minds.
Or maybe because, with some converters, it actually does sound the same.

Quote:
Even with material destined for CD, as Ubik said, recording, processing, and mixing at 192 will produce a more accurate result, even at 44.1, because more detail is capured and the digital processing is done with much greater precision at 192 (which particularly benefits the high end and transients).
You can still have all of the benefits of processing at higher sampling rates without actually capturing your signal at those rates. All the transient detail we can hear (or perceive) can be captured just fine at 44.1 kHz.

Quote:
Who knows whether DVD-A or SACD will catch on, but there's no doubt something even better will eventually come along to replace them, and no doubt a quality 192 recording will sound better on those new formats than a 44/48/88/96 one (all other things equal).
There's no doubt that something newer will come along, but it won't necessarily be better. And sure, there is doubt that a quality 192 recording will sound better on those new formats. I doubt it...not that I think it can't. In many cases I'm sure it will. But I don't think it will in every case, and I'm sure that there will be cases when it doesn't sound as good as one recorded at a lower sampling rate.

Quote:
Last but hopefully not least, the joy of working in higher resolution, hearing more of what was there in the original performance.
I don't disagree there, but I don't equate higher resolution with a higher sampling rate...if I want to hear more of what was there in the original performance (which isn't always the goal, but that's beside the point) I'll start at the microphone (both the microphone itself and its placement), then move on down to the preamp and any other processing, and then the converter. And again, even when it does come to the converter, it totally depends on the converter whether or not recording at a higher sampling rate will give you more of what was there in the individual performance.

All practice aside...if it could be proven that one converter was more accurate than all others, and that it sounded just as accurate at 44.1 kHz as at 192 kHz, which sampling rate would you want to record at? I get the impression that many people would rather record at the higher sampling rate. I don't understand why people are so opposed to the thought that lower sampling rates can sound as good as higher ones. If they can't, fine, but if they can, I'm all for it.

Quote:
Whether that advantage is "subtle" or "dramatic" is completely subjective, and whether it's worth the extra disk space and CPU load is also a judgement call for each of us to make.
Or "nonexistent".

Quote:
I think at this point people who argue for 44.1/48khz are saying it's "enough accuracy" and there is some wisdom in that. After all, if Ipsos Reid or AC Neilsen had to poll EVERYONE, they'd go bankrupt pretty quickly.
If you're talking about accuracy, the thing is that at the frequencies we can hear you're not gaining any "accuracy" at higher sampling rates. All you're gaining is higher-frequency information. 28.16 kHz and 56.32 kHz overtones don't make a signal with a 440 Hz fundamental sound any more accurate to us, and none of the overtones that do affect what we can hear will be captured more accurately at 192 kHz than at 44.1 kHz (although, as has been pointed out already, by the time the signal has passed through anti-aliasing filters it may well have changed, which is why none of these discussions will likely ever be resolved as you can't "listen" to a sampling rate on its own).

Quote:
That being said, if it was possible (ie. an electronic voting system where every citizen entered in their vote quickly securely and easily), then why not? It would certainly add value. I think there is no argument about quality. The question is whether it's worth it to get that quality.
No, there definitely is an argument about quality. If you could accurately capture every single citizen's vote, that would be accurate enough, right? So why try to capture frequencies we can't hear? As Michal mentioned, that's not the real issue. The real issue is accurately capturing all of those frequencies we can hear. Maybe we need higher-frequency converters to do that, maybe it can be accomplished at lower sampling rates with improved filters. If you captured everyone's vote and weren't convinced your results were accurate, you wouldn't have people vote twice, would you? You'd try to make the system you used to capture those votes more accurate.

Quote:
I find it pathetic that people cling on to some old theories about this and that instead of listening to what the ears are telling you all. If you can't hear it, you can't (and it's sad), but I and many others can hear the differences clearly.
How about those who do listen to what "the ears" are telling them and don't hear the same thing you're hearing? Again, you may hear differences, but that doesn't mean that those differences will be there in every system, or that you're even hearing what you're hearing for the reasons you think you are. You do seem to be a very compassionate person, though, and I'm sure your concern is appreciated.

Quote:
i suggest you guys revisit dan lavry's forum where dan lavry, bob katz, nika aldrich and others pathetically cling to "old theories" . . . just like some still pathetically cling to the theory of evolution despite the new hot "theory of intelligent design"
I've spent less and less time at that forum just because I'm tired of so many posts disappearing and losing track of what I was reading. But if you're talking about the Nyquist theorem, it is that...a proven theorem, not a theory like the ones you mentioned...and as has been pointed out already in this thread, is not really in dispute (or shouldn't be).

Quote:
44.1 and 48 khz will likely go the way of 32 khz. Remember when converters had 32 khz as an option? You don't see that much anymore.
It will take a long, long time for 44.1 kHz to go away. 32 kHz was never a standard sampling rate for delivery. I have an old Lexicon reverb that runs at 32 kHz and sounds great. But there are so many CD's and CD players out there that I think we can expect 44.1 kHz to be around for a while. All the more reason I hope that manufacturers continue to work on making their converters sound better at 44.1 kHz as time goes on (as they have up until this point).

-Duardo
Old 12th June 2005
  #87
Lives for gear
 



As Michal said, there are two approaches. One is to improve the filtering (and possible other circuit related factors), the second is to up the sample rate. Is it surprising to anyone that the cheaper and easier method is being taken?

I mean, you just can't sell enough Lavry Golds to the masses to stay in business.
Old 12th June 2005
  #88
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mytek
Hi Jason

If digital distortion help the sound of your particular record that's fine, but it's not the point here.

Regards, Michal at Mytek
Ouch! My red face is still stinging from this one. I think I had better pull out of this discussion before I bother to reply to that.

Old 12th June 2005
  #89
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdunn
BTW, I've found one particular Telarc CD that was made from DSD master. It is horribly shrill and bright and sterile to my ears. Trumpets that rip your head off!

I have to think that this CD might sound better without all the digital hoopla.
That's given. Does happen. They have some good ones. Conversion or format are only one thing in recording.

We went with couple of friends once through a large stack of SACDs in order to select only few good one for our demos.

Sometimes SACDs (mostly large labels reissues) were made by upsampling 1630 tapes which already have that shrill embedded. You can only do as much as what you start with.

Michal
Old 12th June 2005
  #90
Lives for gear
 

In fairness, I already got a shot in at you about the D Master, which has been in development for what, 8 years? 10?

So we're even now I guess. Yeah, I'm a big fan of digital distortion. My favorite plug in adds it to the signal. No not really.

heh

It's okay, this is a heated debate I guess. Sorry for taking the thread in such a combative direction. It wasn't my intention. This always happens when I post too much at Gearslutz. Inevitably someone throws a cheap shot and I don't visit this site for a while.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump