AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao.

A simplification:

x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to
perceive.
f(x) the result after recording x (A/D)
g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D)
h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D)
i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware
p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback

yeah that is a nice mathematical picture of the issue. Thanks

How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals
involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h()

None of the regular posters on RAHE involved in this thread are
professional recording engineers, mastering engineers or producers. I
do frequently talk to actual recording engineers and mastering
engineers and not just any engineers but the ones that have been
involved in what i think are the best sounding LPs and CDs.

and how valid is
the information found in the links about the recording process problems
that George refers to?

Well there are links to each reference so you can best decide for
yourself what sort of reliablity you can expect from those sources. I
think you will find that our opinions are highly biased in either
direction for different reasons.

Is the information found there obsolete!

Not as long as those releases that date or predate the articles are in
existance. The pathology that CD production has followd is quite
interesting. The audiophile labels have done a great job of making
better sounding CDs over the years while it seems that the mass market
stuff has steadily declined due to excessive compression and noise
reduction. By the way, my name is Scott. Porky George is the name of
our English Bulldog

Scott