Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Waltz Mastering]

No offense taken... and cheers for the Holiday's to everyone.

[MagnetoSound]

Edvaard wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 21:31

Sorry Brian, the name was entered in the field requested on registering, so I assumed it was available for all to see. I have entered my name, Ed Felton, in the 'occupation' slot, since there is no slot for the name in that section available to the public. Hope this helps.

Edvaard,

Your occupation is currently shown as 'student'.

All you have to do is turn off Invisible Mode in your profile and your name will be shown in the correct field.

[Tomas Danko]

MDM, wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 17:14

Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 09:44 Joe, As usual, the answers are far more subtle than Max's knee jerk reaction would suggest. In 2007 Moran and Meyer did a double-blind test of SACD and DVD-A vs. Redbook 16/44, and found that NO ONE in their test groups (over a year of testing) could tell the difference between the two formats. The study is $20.00 through AES, but David Moran has offered to provide copies for free at: drmoran@aol.com My personal issues are about sample rate conversion and bit depth, much more than raw sample rate. So, while I recorded 15ips with and without Dolby and 30ips for a couple of decades, I regularly record at 44.1/24 and am quite comfortable with my personal choice. That way I can avoid sample rate conversions that I suspect are more degrading than the lower overall sample rate. Having said that, my next acquisition will be a 96K 48 track machine and then I will run the DM2000 at 96K and deal with the sample rate conversions. Bill I can hear the difference with my knees.

But that's only because you've got more experience in your knees than I have in my finger!  

[Wireline]

I'm still curious as to the impact of ITB effects in people's decisions for sample rates.  If your digital recording system is no more than just that, a substitute for a tape recorder, then will your choices change?

If you rely on the constant internal up and down sampling of plug ins, are you really operating at 96 or whatever K?  

Will people's choices change when dealing with 24 channels of 96k from differing brands - would Prism's 96K render the same decision as Digi's 96K as SSL's 96K as ...you get the idea.

[kats]

Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:31

What is going on here is a discussion between working professionals who have nuanced views of the audio world and self professed "audiophiles" who want to beat down anyone who disagrees with their opinions, as stated as "facts".

I'm with you there Bill. Having said that, my experience has been that the digital proponents continually cite theoretical facts rather than practical application experiences in their argument against analog recordings and not the other way around.

Anyhow, regarding the 96k vs 44.1. Theoretically there should be no difference. However there are practical considerations in the application of the technology that in many cases make 96k a better sounding choice.

[Bill Mueller]

Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:31

What is going on here is a discussion between working professionals who have nuanced views of the audio world and self professed "audiophiles" who want to beat down anyone who disagrees with their opinions, as stated as "facts".

kats wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 11:17

I'm with you there Bill. Having said that, my experience has been that the digital proponents continually cite theoretical facts rather than practical application experiences in their argument against analog recordings and not the other way around.

Tony,

I agree with you. From the beginning, digital encoding has been presented as a theoretical optimum, when it has ALWAYS been implementation that fails to deliver. From the days of stacked 8 bit DAC's like the AMS 1580, through 14 bit DACs sold as 16 bit and now to the "damn the actual operating conditions, we will deliver 192 no matter what", mentality, digital technology has suffered from the execution. My comcast digital cable looked like crap with tons of MPEG artifacts, not nearly as nice as a good antenna, but was sold on digital "quality". BTW, for those who can get FIOS, RUN don't walk to change. What a difference!

There are horror stories on the other side too. I have used an SSL Axiom MT and in my humble opinion, those boards sound very good, even though they have a 20bit DAC. However, because they are not 24bit, the value of the boards has plummeted, from over $.5M to around $50k. Wow! So the knife cuts both ways.

What bothers me is when opinions get thrown around like the 11th Commandment. That might make someone feel better about themselves, but does damage to the fair exchange of ideas and the educational value of this forum. I have interests in a few seemingly incongruous camps and such posturing would never make it when discussing space ship configuration or the treatment of brain-injured kids. Why would it be OK here?

Quote:

Anyhow, regarding the 96k vs 44.1. Theoretically there should be no difference. However there are practical considerations in the application of the technology that in many cases make 96k a better sounding choice.

Absolutely.

Bill

[MDM,]

I think the point is not to waste time on 'academic' details and get to the point: good sound.

So many things in academia and industry are explained and sold in an overly complex 'authoritative' way.. and what ends up happening in my experience is that this mix of double-blind tests and theory just confuses things further for many.

I know when I hear something if it's ok, that is the only truth I need to know..

straight wire vs. rec/playback loop.. what gets lost along the way?  96 does the high midrange and treble a bit more convincingly (on what I've heard so far).. and I don't care to know why personally because I don't build these things.

like wine tasting, only SOME people can get the subtleties.. others don't.

PLUS... there's the hope that CD's will be replaced by a higher-resolution format in the future and that means that Hi-res recordings of today may end-up being sold in their original format instead of downsampled, no?

[maarvold]

nob turner wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 14:44

i read on a digidesign forum recently that sample rate conversion is now routinely done by multiplying the source material's SR by whatever number is necessary to get a rate (typically in the MHz) that can be divided by an integer down to the target sample rate evenly.  i know i am not stating this well, but the implication is that there are no left over partial samples to be interpolated.  this because cpu power has reached the point where this is simple to do.   therefore SR conversion, in a modern DAW, should not be such a bugaboo....

My experience is that SRC--even from a VERY good one (iZotope 64 bit)--still incurs at least a slight sonic penalty.  

[Bill Mueller]

MDM, wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 14:51

I think the point is not to waste time on 'academic' details and get to the point: good sound.

Of course. Let's not let those pesky FACTS get in our way.

Quote:

So many things in academia and industry are explained and sold in an overly complex 'authoritative' way.. and what ends up happening in my experience is that this mix of double-blind tests and theory just confuses things further for many.

I am SOOO glad you are not in charge of the worlds cancer research.

Quote:

I know when I hear something if it's ok, that is the only truth I need to know..

Your level of misplaced confidence is really impressive. Unfortunately, without a curious and open mind, what you currently believe, is the ONLY thing you will ever know.

Quote:

straight wire vs. rec/playback loop.. what gets lost along the way?  96 does the high midrange and treble a bit more convincingly (on what I've heard so far).. and I don't care to know why personally because I don't build these things.

Again, let's not get bogged down in facts and such when we can just proclaim ourselves king. Also, we are not comparing straight wire to anything. We are comparing one system to another.

Quote:

like wine tasting, only SOME people can get the subtleties.. others don't.

Again, your arrogance is astounding.

Quote:

PLUS... there's the hope that CD's will be replaced by a higher-resolution format in the future and that means that Hi-res recordings of today may end-up being sold in their original format instead of downsampled, no?

Here we agree.

Bill

[jetbase]

When I started off on 1/2" 8 track I was using 456 @ 15ips & had a dbx noise reduction unit you had to manually switch over between record & playback, which I eventually never used. When I upgraded to a 2" 24 track machine I decided to run GP9 @ 30ips to help get above the noise & to get what I felt was a better top end. I did miss 456 occassionally, but it was practical for me at the time to not change between tape formulas. I also worked in a studio running a 1" 24 track machine with 456 @ 15ips with dolby, but I never liked that format.

Now I record and mix @ 48kHz (unless a project comes in at 44.1), simply because that's the highest that any of my converters go. I have Prism converters as my main set of ADC, so I feel it would be silly for me to purchase higher sample rate converters unless I could afford Prism or equivalent. At this stage I don't feel the need.

So, analogue at 30ips, digital at 48kHz. Perhaps in a different studio with different equipment my preferences would be different.

[ssltech]

I'm late to the party but I feel obliged to point out another error in Max's original post:

The HF response is NOT defined or delineated in ANY way other than MOL, by 'saturation'. The HF limitation is due to the length of the PLAYBACK head gap relative to the length of the waveform on tape (which is why faster speeds -with their attendant longer waveforms- produce extended high frequencies) allows for higher frequency signals to be RECOVERED from tape. (The tape will ALWAYS store more than can be recovered... it's the playback head which defines the absolute and unavoidable HF limit with its gap dimension).

Similarly the LF rolloff is governed by the playback head's pole shoe. People also forget that tape can store ALL the way down to DC... the problem is recovering it.

Saturation is NOT an issue which defines frequency response. -Ever.

-So while Max may have even more feeling in his knees than even his magical fingers... if I were him, I'd have them checked for Scorflufus.

'the Western world's most feared disease,
is Scorflufus of the knees.
Some knees go "ping", some knees go "pong",
SOME knees even burst into song...'

At the risk of seeming as if I'm 'piling-on', I do actually believe that misapprehensions of this type DO need to be squashed... already there are too many fools around who THINK that they understand how and why analog differs, then proceed to spout something quite irrelevant.

Keith

[Ryan Massey]

To get back to the original question, I don't think 15/30 ips is terribly comparable to the difference between 44.1 vs 96.  There was a difference in noise floor between 15 and 30 ips- which digital doesn't have regardless of sample rate. Punching and splicing both seemed cleaner at 30, but splicing is a lost art, and punching can be fixed, undone, etc.  Sonically, 15 had a cool thing going on, especially in the low end, and 30 seemed a bit "cleaner".  Higher sample rates seem a bit cleaner to me, and i feel like the many tracks stack up a bit better, but there isn't as big of a difference as there was between 15/30 sonically speaking. Finally, double the tape cost is very significant, whereas digital storage and processing have become so cheap and powerful, that the financial burden and the burden on the computer have become negligible.  I use 88.2 and am happy with it, but could live with 44.1.

[compasspnt]

48 is 3.9 better than 44.1.

So why stop at 88.2?

96 is 7.8 better!

[wwittman]

and actually, subjectively, it IS

[MDM,]

ssltech wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 16:05

I'm late to the party but I feel obliged to point out another error in Max's original post: The HF response is NOT defined or delineated in ANY way other than MOL, by 'saturation'. The HF limitation is due to the length of the PLAYBACK head gap relative to the length of the waveform on tape (which is why faster speeds -with their attendant longer waveforms- produce extended high frequencies) allows for higher frequency signals to be RECOVERED from tape. (The tape will ALWAYS store more than can be recovered... it's the playback head which defines the absolute and unavoidable HF limit with its gap dimension). Similarly the LF rolloff is governed by the playback head's pole shoe. People also forget that tape can store ALL the way down to DC... the problem is recovering it. Saturation is NOT an issue which defines frequency response. -Ever. -So while Max may have even more feeling in his knees than even his magical fingers... if I were him, I'd have them checked for Scorflufus. 'the Western world's most feared disease, is Scorflufus of the knees. Some knees go "ping", some knees go "pong", SOME knees even burst into song...' At the risk of seeming as if I'm 'piling-on', I do actually believe that misapprehensions of this type DO need to be squashed... already there are too many fools around who THINK that they understand how and why analog differs, then proceed to spout something quite irrelevant. Keith

Keith,

head-gap is a comprimise and is something which is designed according to a series of considerations.  It affects frequency response--the narrower the head-gap.. like in Nakamichi cassette players.. the better the response on the top-- but it has drawbacks because when recording it needs more bias and it focuses on the top layer of oxide  etc. etc.

the slower the speed, the earlier high-frequencies begin to distort.. and as you may remember this is a GRADUAL process UNLIKE in digital..

so at slower speeds, at highish operating levels (which is how a lot of people record) the top end response will SOUND DIFFERENT at a lower speed than at a higher one

saturating the tape at 30 ips has a different sound.

treble in general at 30 ips sounds harder and more defined..



Bill,

my arrogance is bigger than yours..

don't be so sure that facts don't get in the way of things like cancer research either..