Allen Corneau wrote:

I'm always a tiny bit disappointed when I get back down to 44.1 after
working all day in 88/96.

Phsycological ? Expectation effect ?

geoff

On 3/23/06 5:16 PM, in article ,
"Geoff@work" wrote:

Allen Corneau wrote:

I'm always a tiny bit disappointed when I get back down to 44.1 after
working all day in 88/96.

Phsycological ? Expectation effect ?

Nope. If I play both the hi-res version along side the 44.1 version and flip
between the two, there is a clear difference. Most of my clients can hear
the difference, even when they have no idea what two sources they're
listening to. They tell me that one of the versions (which ends up being the
44.1 version) isn't as exciting or life-like. It's not a huge change, but
definitely noticeable.

Having a very good monitoring environment (DAC, amp/speakers, room) makes
all the difference, though.

Allen
--
Allen Corneau
Mastering Engineer
Essential Sound Mastering
www.esmastering.com

"Allen Corneau" wrote in message
...
On 3/22/06 9:29 PM, in article , "Scott
Dorsey"
wrote:
It should now be possible to do completely transparent SRC.

You're right Scott, it SHOULD be. Unfortunately, in reality it's not that
easy. Folks should read some of the SRC discussions on the mastering
forums!

I myself have been less than completely happy with the state of SRC in my
system. I use the Sadie SRC to up-sample to double the incoming rate (44
to
88, 48 to 96) and use an outboard Z-sys SRC to come back down to 44.1.

I'm always a tiny bit disappointed when I get back down to 44.1 after
working all day in 88/96.

Get rid of the Z-sys SRC then! Obviously you have no frequencies above 22 or
24 kHz to begin with.
A good SRC should be able to double and halve the sample rate transparently
without raising a sweat.

Try my previous test suggestion to see just how much change is, or isn't,
been introduced.


My understanding is that the Weiss SRC unit, as well as their new SARACON
software SRC, are top notch. Of course there are also top-grade SRC's from
DCS and Lavry. All it takes is money!


Yes, if you don't bother making actual measurements on the results, then the
most expensive item always sounds better :-)
And people will always focus on the areas that have the least problems for
some unknown reason, while neglecting the real problem areas that are more
difficult to fix, ie. speakers.


MrT.

"Geoff@work" wrote in news:C%FUf.8230
:

Phsycological

Combines psychological, physiological, and pharmacological in one word?

Allen Corneau wrote:

Nope. If I play both the hi-res version along side the 44.1 version and flip
between the two, there is a clear difference. Most of my clients can hear
the difference, even when they have no idea what two sources they're
listening to. They tell me that one of the versions (which ends up being the
44.1 version) isn't as exciting or life-like. It's not a huge change, but
definitely noticeable.

Having a very good monitoring environment (DAC, amp/speakers, room) makes
all the difference, though.

You could make a good argument that this is due to deficiencies in the
converters. But in the end, if it is, you can't do anything about it
now other than to run in 88/96 anyway.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3/24/06 10:01 AM, in article , "Scott
Dorsey" wrote:


You could make a good argument that this is due to deficiencies in the
converters. But in the end, if it is, you can't do anything about it
now other than to run in 88/96 anyway.


In my case the DAC is the Benchmark DAC-1.


Allen
--
Allen Corneau
Mastering Engineer
Essential Sound Mastering
www.esmastering.com