mark4man wrote on Wed, 02 June 2004 20:41 |
Who converts in the digital domain...who recaptures the analog file... |
jfrigo wrote on Wed, 02 June 2004 23:47 |
However, we did rent a Lavry DAC924 for the last SACD session (to feed the Meitner AD), but 96k PCM to DSD conversion isn't the same thing as going from 96 PCM to 44.1 PCM. It's still early in the life of SACD. |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 June 2004 04:59 |
At this point, I avoid SRC like the plague as I have found nothing in software that is invisible and don't have a hardware SRC. Hopefully I'll have something soon to alleviate. More later. |
Quote: | ||
Cool, I didn't know you had done any SACD. What was the session you mastered for SACD, Jay? |
Quote: |
Who converts in the digital domain...who recaptures the analog file... ...what kinds of results do you get |
jfrigo wrote on Thu, 03 June 2004 15:13 |
Notice the "we" as I imagine you must have. It was one of the sessions DC ("Dave Collins" for the acronym impaired) and I worked on together a little while after he made Mastersuite's studio his home base, with Dave EQing and me editing. |
Quote: |
jfrigo wrote on Thu, 03 June 2004 14:13 David Glasser from Airshow could probably tell us what the latest SOTA is in PCM to DSD transcoding and whether it is satisfying to his ears. With my limited DSD experience, I'll leave it to him to expand upon the issue if he would like to. |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 June 2004 16:23 | ||
Nice. How much editing goes on during one of those YJ sessions? In my experince those jazz guys have their stuff down cold way before mastering... |
jfrigo wrote on Thu, 03 June 2004 19:44 |
As for the Yellowjackets, we did the normal amount of messing around with spacing and fades and maybe tried an alternative here or there, but in their case, I'd say they were pretty well prepared and it went pretty quickly. |
Quote: |
Do you get lots of simple edits, or are people getting pretty creative? It sure seems that many if not most of my clients enjoy the positive difference we can make during the editing stage. |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 June 2004 17:47 | ||
Hardly any editing nowadays (thank goodness)... |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 June 2004 17:47 | ||
Kinda what I figured... |
jfrigo wrote on Thu, 03 June 2004 19:50 |
Did you hire somebody to do your editing or is it just that there aren't client attended sessions with people wanting to try things? |
Quote: |
At this point, I avoid SRC like the plague as I have found nothing in software that is invisible |
bbalin wrote on Sun, 06 June 2004 13:45 |
Brad, what are the problems you're seeing with software SRCs ? I remember our (small) discussion on the samplitude forum but unfortunately it did not go on. |
OatBran wrote on Mon, 07 June 2004 04:25 |
Is this just in my head/ears or has anybody else found this? And if so, why did we as an industry go 96 instead of 88.2 if our market is still 44.1? |
Quote: |
When using any software SRC I've used, I notice a slight collapse of the soundfield along with an overall darkening of the track. The very highest setting in Samp7, for example, yields a narrower soundfield an sounds like you reduced 10kHz by a good .5dB. Not acceptable to me. |
Quote: |
In my experience I have always found the conversions from 88.2 to 44.1 more seemless then the 96 to 44.1 conversion. Not much more, but apparent none the less. Is this just in my head/ears or has anybody else found this? |
OatBran wrote on Sun, 06 June 2004 22:25 |
I have a quick question that applies indirectly to this topic. In my experience I have always found the conversions from 88.2 to 44.1 more seemless then the 96 to 44.1 conversion. |
chrisj wrote on Fri, 11 June 2004 14:18 |
I'm honestly surprised by this thread as well- Brad's way ahead of me in so many things that I'm puzzled. Maybe I can help. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 11 June 2004 15:42 | ||
Umm, I don't get it - what does this mean? FWIW, I'm quite sure I'll end up with a hardware async SRC when all is said and done... |
chrisj wrote on Fri, 11 June 2004 15:10 |
Since libsamplerate ('Secret Rabbit Code', as used in Audacity) is _software_ async SRC using essentially a virtual analog intermediate stage and NOT just a very-high-rate intermediate stage, I still think you should check it out. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 11 June 2004 16:31 | ||
What does that mean? The best SRCs I've seen do simply upsample to a very hi fs before downsampling. I might have missed it but what on earth is 'a virtual analog intermediate stage'? |