Bruno Putzeys reaches out to the subjectivists

[watchnerd]

Hmmm ... so the source was digital converted to analogue in the Hegel, then converted back to digital in the Kii, DSP'd and finally DAC'd to analogue to feed the speakers - a very direct route ...

It's the same process that happens in most (not all) mixing studios.

Mic -> ADC -> DAW workstation -> interface DAC -> monitor control -> active monitors (which if newish, often have a DAC inside)

 

[fas42]

Sound is analogue, our hearing is analogue - but we store recordings digitally now, for lots of excellent reasons. So no matter what there will always be 2 conversion taking place. On the recording side the mic feed should be immediately digitised, and for maximum quality needs to remain in that domain until just prior to hitting the speakers - one ADC, one DAC. When we buy a recording it's digital, and should remain so until we want to hear it - one and one only DAC in the playback chain - which is what happens in the mixing studios, unless they want to add some analogue "dirt", for effect ...

 

[RayDunzl]

one and one only DAC in the playback chain

Remember the old SPARS code?

There are five types:

• AAA – A fully analogue recording, from the original session to mastering. Since at least the mastering recorder must be digital to make a compact disc, this code is not applicable to CDs.[1]
• AAD – Analog tape recorder used during initial recording, mixing/editing, Digital mastering.
• ADD – Analog tape recorder used during initial recording, Digital tape recorder used during mixing/editing and for mastering.
• DDD – Digital tape recorder used during initial recording, mixing/editing and for mastering.
• DAD – Digital tape recorder used during initial recording, Analog tape recorder used during mixing/editing, Digital mastering.

 

[watchnerd]

Sound is analogue, our hearing is analogue - but we store recordings digitally now, for lots of excellent reasons. So no matter what there will always be 2 conversion taking place. On the recording side the mic feed should be immediately digitised, and for maximum quality needs to remain in that domain until just prior to hitting the speakers - one ADC, one DAC. When we buy a recording it's digital, and should remain so until we want to hear it - one and one only DAC in the playback chain - which is what happens in the mixing studios, unless they want to add some analogue "dirt", for effect ...

Wow, so much wrong in this post.

The first being the assumption that the mic signal is immediately digitized. It's not. Almost never is. At a minimum it goes through analog mic preamps in any venue where the mic cables are long.

Second, many studios still use analog compressors and other effects before A/D conversion.

Third, you're leaving out instruments that are themselves digital, which add another conversion to the chain.

I've been in situations where 5 different ADDA conversions took place.

 

[fas42]

Wow, so much wrong in this post.

The first being the assumption that the mic signal is immediately digitized. It's not. Almost never is. At a minimum it goes through analog mic preamps in any venue where the mic cables are long.

Second, many studios still use analog compressors and other effects before A/D conversion.

Third, you're leaving out instruments that are themselves digital, which add another conversion to the chain.

I've been in situations where 5 different ADDA conversions took place.

I'm talking about getting a premium quality signal into the recording. If the sound engineer likes a lot of analogue "niceifying" before it becomes digital that's his call - but wouldn't be how I'd do it; to me the smart thing is to do ADC as soon as possible.

With a digital intrument, you should take the digital feed from an output socket - or are you talking about instruments so limited they don't have this capability?

 

[watchnerd]

With a digital intrument, you should take the digital feed from an output socket - or are you talking about instruments so limited they don't have this capability?

So limited?

Digital instruments often have MIDI out. That's not a limitation, that's how they're designed to work....

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Wow, so much wrong in this post.

The first being the assumption that the mic signal is immediately digitized. It's not. Almost never is. At a minimum it goes through analog mic preamps in any venue where the mic cables are long.

Second, many studios still use analog compressors and other effects before A/D conversion.

Third, you're leaving out instruments that are themselves digital, which add another conversion to the chain.

I've been in situations where 5 different ADDA conversions took place.

I think Ray's descriptions of the standard codes are accurate, although those codes do not capture every nuance of the recording chain equipment.

Ray's post is not wrong, as you said, because, imperfect though they may be, them be's the codes as defined.

I think you also imply, unintentionally perhaps, that quality standards in the signal chain used widely for recording are low. That may or may not be true. I think it depends. I have a little familiarity with classical music recording and what I have seen in live recording setups by professional engineers does not conform to your dire description.

 

[watchnerd]

I think Ray's descriptions of the standard codes are accurate, although those codes do not capture every nuance of the recording chain equipment.

Ray's post is not wrong, as you said, because, imperfect though they may be, them be's the codes as defined.

I think you also imply, unintentionally perhaps, that quality standards in the signal chain used widely for recording are low. That may or may not be true. I think it depends. I have a little familiarity with classical music recording and what I have seen in live recording setups by professional engineers does not conform to your dire description.

Do you perhaps mean to quote someone else?

Because I don't feel as if these comments address anything I said.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

A misunderstanding perhaps. Ray's post immediately ahead of yours:

Remember the old SPARS code?

There are five types:

• AAA – A fully analogue recording, from the original session to mastering. Since at least the mastering recorder must be digital to make a compact disc, this code is not applicable to CDs.[1]
• AAD – Analog tape recorder used during initial recording, mixing/editing, Digital mastering.
• ADD – Analog tape recorder used during initial recording, Digital tape recorder used during mixing/editing and for mastering.
• DDD – Digital tape recorder used during initial recording, mixing/editing and for mastering.
• DAD – Digital tape recorder used during initial recording, Analog tape recorder used during mixing/editing, Digital mastering.

Wow, so much wrong in this post.

The first being the assumption that the mic signal is immediately digitized. It's not. Almost never is. At a minimum it goes through analog mic preamps in any venue where the mic cables are long.

Second, many studios still use analog compressors and other effects before A/D conversion.

Third, you're leaving out instruments that are themselves digital, which add another conversion to the chain.

I've been in situations where 5 different ADDA conversions took place.

I was responding to your "so much wrong in this post" comment. Were you not referring to Ray's post immediately ahead of yours? If so, I disagree. Your problem may be with the definition of the SPARS code, but Ray has captured that accurately, for better or for worse.

If not, then what were you referring to?

 

[watchnerd]

A misunderstanding perhaps. Ray's post immediately ahead of yours:





I was responding to your "so much wrong in this post" comment. Were you not referring to Ray's post immediately ahead of yours? If so, I disagree. Your problem may be with the definition of the SPARS code, but Ray has captured that accurately, for better or for worse.

If not, then what were you referring to?

I was responding to Frank, which is whom I quoted.

I have no disagreement with what Ray posted.

 

[fas42]

So limited?

Digital instruments often have MIDI out. That's not a limitation, that's how they're designed to work....

MIDI is something completely different. I'm talking about what the digital circuitry in the instrument produces, prior to be being passed through its own DAC, and fed to Analogue Out, and internal amplifiers. Looking at Yamaha Motif, I see Digital Out, USB, Ethernet, and FireWire ... not too bad a set of options.

 

[watchnerd]

MIDI is something completely different. I'm talking about what the digital circuitry in the instrument produces, prior to be being passed through its own DAC, and fed to Analogue Out, and internal amplifiers. Looking at Yamaha Motif, I see Digital Out, USB, Ethernet, and FireWire ... not too bad a set of options.

Are you alleging that the internal DAC of the Motif is good or bad?

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

 

[fas42]

Are you alleging that the internal DAC of the Motif is good or bad?

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

The point is, that you said above:

Third, you're leaving out instruments that are themselves digital, which add another conversion to the chain.

If you take the digital feed of the instrument and insert that into a recorder track then there are zero conversions, on the recording side, for those instruments.

 

[watchnerd]

The point is, that you said above:

If you take the digital feed of the instrument and insert that into a recorder track then there are zero conversions, on the recording side, for those instruments.

For those, sure. But that's not true for MIDI instruments, of which there are scores.

Not to mention Ableton MIDI DJ pads.

 

[fas42]

For those, sure. But that's not true for MIDI instruments, of which there are scores.

Not to mention Ableton MIDI DJ pads.

MIDI, being computer code, is already digital - not a waveform but the instructions for "playing" an instrument. As such, all that's needed is a sound module with digital out, or far more likely, just the software that comes with everything these days - feed in MIDI, output is digital audio, job done.

 

[watchnerd]

MIDI, being computer code, is already digital - not a waveform but the instructions for "playing" an instrument. As such, all that's needed is a sound module with digital out, or far more likely, just the software that comes with everything these days - feed in MIDI, output is digital audio, job done.

I'm going to try to get this back on track for the thread:

Going back to your original concern, that an extra ADDA step is something to be concerned about, I think your concerns are misplaced.

Somebody (Hydrogen? Ethan Winer?) has posted an 8 generation ADDA conversion online where you can test for yourself if you can hear the difference between the original and the multi ADDA copy.

 

[RayDunzl]

Somebody

Blumlein88 posted one he did:

http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...s-with-repeated-dac-adc-loops.387/#post-10526

And then Ethan posted his in the thread.

 

[fas42]

I'm going to try to get this back on track for the thread:

Going back to your original concern, that an extra ADDA step is something to be concerned about, I think your concerns are misplaced.

Somebody (Hydrogen? Ethan Winer?) has posted an 8 generation ADDA conversion online where you can test for yourself if you can hear the difference between the original and the multi ADDA copy.

Yes, that extra DAAD is the concern. If implemented well, then it won't be an issue - but that's the $64 question: in the context of the particular system playback functioning, at that moment, is it functioning as well as it should? I ask this, because I've seen a pattern, so far: if the Kii is fed digital direct then the sound comes across well, it has no apparent problems; if sourced via the extra DAAD step then even on public clips there are clear anomalies in the quality.

 

[Purité Audio]

Whether the Kii's are fed analogue or digital, s/pdif. AES toslink or USB the sound is identical.
Keith.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I was responding to Frank, which is whom I quoted.

I have no disagreement with what Ray posted.

Ok, sorry. Since Frank is on my ignore list, I did not see that you were responding to him. It was not Ray, as it appeared to be. I did not see a quote in your post. Not sure if the ignore function causes that to happen.