kats wrote on Mon, 15 November 2010 11:26 |
And just to be clear, I don't think these Apogee's are bad. I am just wondering out loud if we've come to a brick wall as far as 24 bit recording is concerned. Is this it? |
kats wrote on Tue, 16 November 2010 10:45 |
Why do we need the full 24 bits? I understand the philosophy behind higher sample rates vs. filter implementation, but not really why we would need more bits. |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 09:49 |
Just like the purest water has no taste and no colour, one has to mix it with alcohol to regain some excitement... |
Quote: |
Talk about being underwhelmed. 10 years later and this is where we're at? Give me a break... |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 09:49 |
I think the brickwall is not 24bit; it's that the current technology has hit the point where it is so devoid of audible flaws and artefacts it has become tasteless. Just like the purest water has no taste and no colour, one has to mix it with alcohol to regain some excitement... The excitement of tape comes from its flaws, saturation, head bumps, flutter, self-erasure, noise-dither...The closest to perfection it became (A827), the less exciting it sounded. |
kats wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 17:15 | ||
Naahh, I doubt all that. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 16:07 |
Good digital sounds more like the signal from the mic preamps. Good analog mimics the behavior of the human ear at high volume levels, smooths out some of the exaggerated transients and midrange peaks that come with close-micing, and sounds more like the sound in the room. |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 18:53 | ||||
|
kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 09:53 |
Not that it isn't perfect, but rather why isn't it improving. |
kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 08:53 | ||||||
I'm sorry, it's just that your basic premise that digital is too perfect therefore making music too boring or less exciting is wrong. |
Quote: |
Therefore, I doubt the rest of your post. |
Quote: |
A simple test you can conduct to prove yourself wrong is to a/b the output of your console with the digitally converted returns. If it was too perfect there would be no difference. Unfortunately there is. |
Quote: |
However, my post is really a commentary on how slow the progress of digital conversion has been over the last 25 years. Not that it isn't perfect, but rather why isn't it improving. |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 09:08 | ||
Of course if something really were perfect, it could not be improved upon. |
kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 08:53 |
I'm sorry, it's just that your basic premise that digital is too perfect therefore making music too boring or less exciting is wrong. |
bruno putzeys wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 08:41 |
I find it curious that people are counting on the recorder to add stuff that should be in the signal before it gets there. snip |
svs95 wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 09:45 |
Thanks, Geoff! That's not too bad for the highest dsd sample rate! I'd like to know about build quality on the korg 2000, if anybody has one? I guess I would prefer to see a number of installations where this has been implemented, but that may have to wait awhile. |
bruno putzeys wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 08:41 |
I find it curious that people are counting on the recorder to add stuff that should be in the signal before it gets there. |
svs95 wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 17:00 |
. I do agree that the character (whether you consider it "destructive" or "euphonic") of analog tape (which is always there - i.e., tape has a "sound" -- it's not sonically invisible) is not always appropriate to every source, now that we have high quality digital recording capabilities. That should be a producer option - not a limitation of the studio. . |
kats wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 22:54 | ||
Your statement implies that converters do not have a sound. Every converter brand I have used sounded different from each other ( not to mention the source). Radar, Apogee, UA, Avid, and others. This fact alone makes the rest of your post nonsensical. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 10:23 | ||||
|
kats wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 12:11 | ||||||
My guess? All of it. The point? |
Jay Kadis wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 10:37 | ||||||||
|
kats wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 09:44 |
Well considering the only way to convert an analog signal to digital is with the use of analog filters, how can you separate the two? You can't say "If it wasn't for the fact that we have to convert analog signals to digital, digital would be perfect". |
Jay Kadis wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 16:37 | ||||||||
|
kats wrote on Sun, 14 November 2010 19:12 |
I had to replace an old RADAR (classic cards) system last week with the new Apogee (Apogee/symphony whatever TF they're called now - they replace the ADX series) system due to workflow issues. |