Almost certainly, I hadn't realised the Nagras were so heavy, they take 12 D cells, and you need to carry spare tape,microphone ...
Keith
Keith
And the answer has always been, and remains so to this day: digital playback by its nature is prone to introducing disturbing artifacts into system playback, and these distortion anomalies are more unpleasant the higher the playback level - this is not "correct playback" of the source, and will cause many listeners to lose interest in continued, extended listening - it sounds correct, but is flawed, in non-obvious but still audible ways.Yes, there are still musicians, and even engineers, who believe tape, and even vinyl, is better. I honestly don't know how they get there. You can listen to a voice, or a simple acoustic instrument, from the mic feed and then from the recording, and...well I don't know how one concludes that analog is better.
Tim
And the answer has always been, and remains so to this day: digital playback by its nature is prone to introducing disturbing artifacts into system playback, and these distortion anomalies are more unpleasant the higher the playback level - this is not "correct playback" of the source, and will cause many listeners to lose interest in continued, extended listening - it sounds correct, but is flawed, in non-obvious but still audible ways.
Frank ur injecting disturbing artefacts into this thread.. Ur musings are the clearest sign of distortion I have seen for some timeAnd the answer has always been, and remains so to this day: digital playback by its nature is prone to introducing disturbing artifacts into system playback, and these distortion anomalies are more unpleasant the higher the playback level - this is not "correct playback" of the source, and will cause many listeners to lose interest in continued, extended listening - it sounds correct, but is flawed, in non-obvious but still audible ways.
And the answer by the other crowd is to go analogue - solves the digital issues, but introduces more obvious distortions, which fortunately are much easier to listen to over extended periods, for these people. The best alternative is to ensure no significant, audible distortion artifacts are produced, at all - but this is still far from being a trivial thing to do ...
And the answer has always been, and remains so to this day: digital playback by its nature is prone to introducing disturbing artifacts into system playback, and these distortion anomalies are more unpleasant the higher the playback level - this is not "correct playback" of the source, and will cause many listeners to lose interest in continued, extended listening - it sounds correct, but is flawed, in non-obvious but still audible ways.
And the answer by the other crowd is to go analogue - solves the digital issues, but introduces more obvious distortions, which fortunately are much easier to listen to over extended periods, for these people. The best alternative is to ensure no significant, audible distortion artifacts are produced, at all - but this is still far from being a trivial thing to do ...
There is so much processing/mixing in a movie soundtrack that I don't think there is useful information beyond 16 even if the production was done at much higher bit depths.Too many Blu-rays are only 16-bit, and only 48kHz (they are all 48, the vast majority). And then, are they derived from the masters?
Drivel. They may sound very good. They don't surpass fidelity of digital formats. Its okay to rave about how good something can be. Those are probably of enough fidelity a performance sounds great on them if the recording is good. Same can be said of CD.♪♫♪♫♪ High-Res Audio?
"We now include audiophile vinyl reviews in our Hi-Res Section because at AUDIOPHILE AUDITION we feel that that analog format, when properly done, can equal or surpass the fidelity of the top digital hi-res formats. This is especially true of 45 rpm 12″ audiophile discs, which can approach the aural achievements of direct discs of the past."
We all need to get a high-end resolution turntable and buy the best hi-res 45RPM albums.
Then we can walk the talk.
Without that we're just blowin' dust in the wind.
Of course they can be measured, but because they typically only result from the complete system being in operation they are more difficult to "nail" - a good example would be a DAC which measures "perfectly" in isolation, but once inserted into a system which has the speakers being driven strongly by the power amplifier, which then injects high levels of noise into the mains supply in the area, by virtue of the current spikes being required by its power supply, then ends up not working at spec levels. The system is the circuit, not the individual component working by itself - that's how I've always worked to optimise sound by approaching the exercise at a system level, never just by the single box of electronics, etc.Can you measure these distortions? I imagine that you'll say that they can't be measured or that any 'digital' noise of any kind (even at -110dB) is unnatural - and that will be the end of that conversation.
The only argument I can make, is that there are digital recordings from 1978 that people still listen to and rave about. If, in 2016, there are digital artefacts that make recordings unlistenable, then the ones from 1978 must be hundreds of times worse. But people who don't know about these abominable distortions listen to them and love them anyway.
Yes, at least partially. The analogue has stripped off the areas of the sound which are most prone to creating disturbing distortion, so digital reproduction will be less of a problem here. My viewpoint is that the recordings are always clean, and I repeat, always - but an extremely accurate recording, by digital recording chain, will have a content which will be 'harder' to reproduce satisfactorily - any distortion of this content will be harder to stomache, so, unfortunately, the playback chain needs to be on its best behaviour for these recordings.This would be using analog as a filter. It filters out "disturbing artefacts". Digital recordings of such are also non-disturbing. The question is whether digital has disturbing artefacts inherent or simply that other aspects of recording practice are creating them which digital transmits cleanly. The evidence points elsewhere than digital being a problem.
It depends. Real violins can be played in such a way that the sound is obnoxious, in the flesh - but we are hopefully talking about recordings where the players have a modicum of skill. And when played with some level of expertise then violins have a very intense sound, which is simultaneously "sweet" - it drills a hole through your skull, but this is not an unpleasant experience! Unless, it's elderly Yehudi Menuhin - his later playing can be tough going ...Smooth sweet sounding violins are not real sounding. Real violins are rather raucous. Real violins recorded 8 inches from the instrument are far more raucous than when heard 20 feet away. I think the answer is to quit using band-aids and quit recording such an instrument up close. Just for one example.
Another example of where a listening trial using humans to indicate 'preference' would be in danger of falling prey to their preconceived ideas of how a violin should sound, rather than reality - or what was on the recording. Of course if the eminent audio scientist strings a few words together like "Over a sufficient number of trials with many types of listeners, music and recordings this anomaly would be ironed out", the problem just goes away.Smooth sweet sounding violins are not real sounding. Real violins are rather raucous. Real violins recorded 8 inches from the instrument are far more raucous than when heard 20 feet away.
Well I said raucous. I did mean that, but not screechy. Screechy is on the player. Maybe it is just those I have run into and how often I read about sweet violins. Many people seem to think or at least prefer a violin always sound smooth and sweet. Sometimes on some music they are supposed to have bite, and certainly some texture beyond glassy smoothness.I'm not sure what you mean by raucous, cosmik. A violin can be loud, intrusive, even harsh...on purpose. But it can also be as soft and sweet as a baby's breath. That's the player. If a violin sounds screechy, that's the player too, playing badly. I play with a violin player. I hear her playing, standing right next to me, all the time. She doesn't screech.
Tim