Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

http://www.targetcd.com/


Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD.

I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly.
Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs?

They both sound great.
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/


Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD.

I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly.
Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs?

They both sound great.


He's "into" those Target CDs...

http://www.keithhirsch.com/

Jack
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:35 AM UTC-4, jjaj.l.com wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/


Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD.

I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly.
Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs?

They both sound great.


He's "into" those Target CDs...

http://www.keithhirsch.com/

Jack



_______

Dude, click the link in my original
post and LEARN about what Target CD
signifies.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:35 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/


Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD.

I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly.
Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs?

They both sound great.


He's "into" those Target CDs...

http://www.keithhirsch.com/

Jack




Also: http://www.keithhirsch.com/target-cds
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/


Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD.

I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly.
Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs?

They both sound great.


Found a Pablo Cruise song in public domain. It SOUNDED nice, extended ending. Years went by, not nowing what CD it came from. Then I find Universal marketing their fancy HQ CD by that group. I compared and identical wave forms. In other words, the HQ format did noting for quality.

Jack


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:31:13 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:35 AM UTC-4, jjaj.l.com wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/


Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD.

I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly.
Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs?

They both sound great.


He's "into" those Target CDs...

http://www.keithhirsch.com/

Jack



_______

Dude, click the link in my original
post and LEARN about what Target CD
signifies.


All I know, Sony was having US CDs made in Japan, until US people complained!!
Not really into Target CDs, I see little value in them, IMO.

Jack
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Target CDs

On 19/07/2017 2:34 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:35 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/


Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD.

I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly.
Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs?

They both sound great.


He's "into" those Target CDs...

http://www.keithhirsch.com/

Jack




Also: http://www.keithhirsch.com/target-cds



"Flat transfers of the original tapes" meaning tapes mastered for vinyl ?

Yuk.

geoff
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Target CDs

On 18/07/2017 21:10, geoff wrote:

"Flat transfers of the original tapes" meaning tapes mastered for vinyl ?

If they zero out with the normal CDs, it was likely a dupe of the
digital master that was sent to the pressing plant. Two transfers from
the same analogue master tape are very unlikely to be identical bit for
bit, with the best result being something as minor as the tape flutter
being out of phase, even if both transfers were made on the same machine.

The reason they were not processed further in the pressing plant was
because people were still learning about the process and only noticed
the immediate vast improvement in perceived quality over vinyl.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

geoff wrote: "Yuk."


Better than the situation described he
https://www.facebook.com/pg/2016Save...=page_internal
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

John Williamson wrote: "
If they zero out with the normal CDs, it was likely a dupe of the
digital master that was sent to the pressing plant. Two transfers from
the same analogue master tape are very unlikely to be identical bit for
bit, with the best result being something as minor as the tape flutter
being out of phase, even if both transfers were made on the same machine.

The reason they were not processed further in the pressing plant was
because people were still learning about the process and only noticed
the immediate vast improvement in perceived quality over vinyl. "


By "not processed further", what sort of processing
are you referring to?
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,481
Default Target CDs

On 19/07/2017 9:35 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "Yuk."


Better than the situation described he
https://www.facebook.com/pg/2016Save...=page_internal

Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again.

Sadly a highly flawed and erroneous page that only perpetuates a lack of
deeper understanding of the multiple issues with good or bad mastering
and remastering..

- Loudness wars are/were not the sole the domain of REmastering.

- Remastering does not inherently imply reduced dynamic range.

- Loudness (or other mastering or remaster processes) do not inherently
need to be digital to acheive either good or bad things.

- There are many remastered releases that sound FANTASTIC compared to
the original. The most objectionable ones were from the era of early
digital processing with relatively poor AD and bit-depths. And those
flaws are not related to hyper-compression.

geoff

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

geoff wrote: "Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again.

Sadly a highly flawed and erroneous page that only perpetuates a lack of
deeper understanding of the multiple issues with good or bad mastering
and remastering..

- Loudness wars are/were not the sole the domain of REmastering.

- Remastering does not inherently imply reduced dynamic range.

- Loudness (or other mastering or remaster processes) do not inherently
need to be digital to acheive either good or bad things.

- There are many remastered releases that sound FANTASTIC compared to
the original. The most objectionable ones were from the era of early
digital processing with relatively poor AD and bit-depths. And those
flaws are not related to hyper-compression.

geoff "

Well, in every example on that page, as
pertaining to main stream releases, the
remaster appears to have just been made
louder, with less D.R. And no improvements
in converters, or 24 vs 16bit transfers, can
make up for what was done in those cases
after transferring. And yes, I do know
that remastering does not *have* to mean
what was done in the examples on that
page, but: that is what was sold to
unsuspecting fans of those particular
performers as 'remastered'.


No thanks, I'll keep my original CDs and
Targets. Ain't missing much.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Target CDs

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again.


Of course, that's the whole reason for theckma the retard's original
post. He wanted to smear his hobby-horse **** all over the newsgroup,
yet again.

theckma-sucks-hobbyhorsedick @ theckhma-the-retard.
shortbus-****stain . com puked

No thanks, I'll keep my original CDs and
Targets. Ain't missing much.


That's because you don't listen to them, you just look at your
computer screen and whine, and then you bring your village idiot
schtick to usenet because you're a ****ing idiot. DFCKWAFA. AADMEI.



  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 4:10:50 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 19/07/2017 2:34 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:35 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
http://www.targetcd.com/


Recently acquired my second CD of "Behind The Sun" - E. Clapton, #9 25166-2 as 'target' CD.

I WAV'd both version, target and regular, into my DAW and they nulled perfectly.
Is zero difference a normal occurrence between special target editions and regular CDs?

They both sound great.

He's "into" those Target CDs...

http://www.keithhirsch.com/

Jack




Also: http://www.keithhirsch.com/target-cds



"Flat transfers of the original tapes" meaning tapes mastered for vinyl ?

Yuk.

geoff


Flat transfers, because DAW didn't exist then :-)

Jack
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 6:53:55 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 19/07/2017 9:35 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "Yuk."


Better than the situation described he
https://www.facebook.com/pg/2016Save...=page_internal

Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again.

Sadly a highly flawed and erroneous page that only perpetuates a lack of
deeper understanding of the multiple issues with good or bad mastering
and remastering..

- Loudness wars are/were not the sole the domain of REmastering.


I agree. I collect past music (50's+), maybe a few are "loud", but majority are not.

- Remastering does not inherently imply reduced dynamic range.


But, I say, but, if someone used compression existing songs, and you remaster and you don't, people will complain.


- Loudness (or other mastering or remaster processes) do not inherently
need to be digital to acheive either good or bad things.


Look at the most recent Beatles remixed CD by Giles Martin. He made it obvious he used compression. But I feel he's inexperienced, as people will "view" the songs.

- There are many remastered releases that sound FANTASTIC compared to
the original. The most objectionable ones were from the era of early
digital processing with relatively poor AD and bit-depths. And those
flaws are not related to hyper-compression.


I would agree, like that Earth, Wind & Fire song I posted. Never sounded clearer.

Jack

geoff


  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:26:51 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again.


Of course, that's the whole reason for theckma the retard's original
post. He wanted to smear his hobby-horse **** all over the newsgroup,
yet again.

theckma-sucks-hobbyhorsedick @ theckhma-the-retard.
shortbus-****stain . com puked

No thanks, I'll keep my original CDs and
Targets. Ain't missing much.


That's because you don't listen to them, you just look at your
computer screen and whine, and then you bring your village idiot
schtick to usenet because you're a ****ing idiot.



Even G' is getting attacked!!!

WTF is?.... DFCKWAFA. AADMEI.

Jack



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:06:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
geoff wrote: "Oh dear. Hobby-horse rears it's head again.

Sadly a highly flawed and erroneous page that only perpetuates a lack of
deeper understanding of the multiple issues with good or bad mastering
and remastering..

- Loudness wars are/were not the sole the domain of REmastering.

- Remastering does not inherently imply reduced dynamic range.

- Loudness (or other mastering or remaster processes) do not inherently
need to be digital to acheive either good or bad things.

- There are many remastered releases that sound FANTASTIC compared to
the original. The most objectionable ones were from the era of early
digital processing with relatively poor AD and bit-depths. And those
flaws are not related to hyper-compression.

geoff "

Well, in every example on that page, as
pertaining to main stream releases, the
remaster appears to have just been made
louder, with less D.R. And no improvements
in converters, or 24 vs 16bit transfers, can
make up for what was done in those cases
after transferring. And yes, I do know
that remastering does not *have* to mean
what was done in the examples on that
page, but: that is what was sold to
unsuspecting fans of those particular
performers as 'remastered'.


No thanks, I'll keep my original CDs and
Targets. Ain't missing much.


I'm not saying Target CDs are bad sounding. It was what I found when I took a day off work, from staying up all night, improving audio quality with my handy, no frills, DAW $49!!! :-)

Target CDs? Like EMI Legendary Master CDs, EMI had to remaster most all those songs. But, I WILL even give Steve Hoffman SOME credit, as he knew a graphic equalizer helped, but that's the extent of his audio knowledge.

Jack
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

John Williamson wrote:

"On 18/07/2017 22:38, wrote:

By "not processed further", what sort of processing
are you referring to?

The compression and other faffing about that some on here have a bee in
their bonnets about. "


And why John, during those initial '80s era transfers
of those original master tapes to CD, should that
'compression and other faffing about' have been
done at all? I glad that stuff WASN'T done, and don't
get this culture that everything being transfered to
digital *must* be compromised by such processing.

Why not just minor adjustments, like channel balance,
and Redbook pre-emph?
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Target CDs

retarded dumb**** @ shortbus.edu smeared hobby-horse-**** on his
face:
I .. don't ... get this


Ride that rotting corpse of a hobby horse, li'l buckaroo retard! Too
bad for you, they won't allow it on the short bus.




  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Target CDs

stupid.stupid.stupid.troll @ tardsRtheckmajjj.com wrote in message
...
And why ...


Its all been explained to you, countless times. You're just too
retarded to comprehend. You'll never understand, because of your
mental impairment. FCKWAFA. AFSBRAD. Right, li'l buddy?



  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 7:14:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

"On 18/07/2017 22:38, wrote:

By "not processed further", what sort of processing
are you referring to?

The compression and other faffing about that some on here have a bee in
their bonnets about. "


And why John, during those initial '80s era transfers
of those original master tapes to CD, should that
'compression and other faffing about' have been
done at all? I glad that stuff WASN'T done, and don't
get this culture that everything being transfered to
digital *must* be compromised by such processing.

Why not just minor adjustments, like channel balance,
and Redbook pre-emph?


You know what is interesting on early CDs? Generally, no credits given who did the audio.
It appears Columbia Records hired their party people to do their audio work, since they probably lacked the knowledge and equipment.

Jack
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

JJAck wrote: "You know what is interesting on early CDs? Generally,
no credits given who did the audio. It appears Columbia Records hired
their party people to do their audio work, since they probably lacked the
knowledge and equipment. "

Credits for engineering & mastering, for
the original vinyl album release are listed,
on the album cover shrunk down to fit
in the CD jewel case. Since those early
transfers were *largely* done flat, there
was no need for CD engineering or
mastering credits to be listed. As I
mentioned earlier, minor leveling or
pre-emphasis to existing masters was
just standard procedure at that time,
not worthy of mastering credit as is
the squash-boost-&-brickwall-limit
job done on MOST "remasters"
since 2000, and practically any new
artist work.
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Target CDs

On 19/07/2017 12:14, wrote:
And why John, during those initial '80s era transfers
of those original master tapes to CD, should that
'compression and other faffing about' have been
done at all? I glad that stuff WASN'T done, and don't
get this culture that everything being transfered to
digital *must* be compromised by such processing.


Just for the heck of it, go to a recording session. Classical or pop,
electric or acoustic. Sit in and listen to what's going on and what it
should really sound like.

Get a copy of the session recordings, and see what happens when you mix
them together without effects of any sort. It'll sound flat, quiet and
uninteresting compared to the original.

One outstanding example. I did a recording of an orchestra, with a
simple stereo pair just behind and above the conductor's head. It's a
good recording, with all the instruments clear and well separated, and
just enough room tone to blend them into a cohesive whole. Full
modulation on the loud bits, and his comment when he heard the raw
recording? "It's a bit quiet, isn't it?" Well, you were the one waving
the stick, controlling the volume, sunshine, *you* turn it up a bit...

Otherwise, I'll compress the dynamic range on the CD to stop him and
others whinging.

Or take a live session from a pop group at a performance. Record it to 8
master tracks, then mix to suit you. Then someone plays it back in their
car and all the subtle but quiet bits disappear under the engine noise,
so you remix with less dynamic range and a bit of equalisation. Then it
gets onto the radio, and not only the engine noise but the FM background
noise drowns out the good bits, so they need turning up, either by
riding the faders or using a compressor.

In the early days of CD, none of this was done, leading to complaints
form the public that the new medium was too quiet, so in part, that's
why we now have the fashion for "sausage skin" envelopes on a lot of
recordings. Another reason is people listening in noisy locations on
earbuds with limited output levels, which is a relatively new thing,
leading to a need for even less dynamic range in the recording.

However, as None says, this has all been explained to you and JackAss
many times, and you still show no sign of even a glimmer of comprehension.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Target CDs

wrote:

And why John, during those initial '80s era transfers
of those original master tapes to CD, should that
'compression and other faffing about' have been
done at all? I glad that stuff WASN'T done, and don't
get this culture that everything being transfered to
digital *must* be compromised by such processing.


But it WAS done, just not so aggressively. Back then, CD mastering was done
the same way LP mastering was done, with an A/B console where you could set
the parameters for the next track while recording the current one. You'd go
through the tape figuring out basic compression and equalization parameters
for each track, then play the tape through the console into the PCM1610 in
realtime. Most folks just took their existing mastering suites and put a
PCM1610 in place of the lathe amps.

Most of those consoles had moderate compression, and a lot of them had a
safety limiter that just couldn't be removed at all. Europadisc had a much
fancier system with the digital Neve mastering console, but even they had
an analogue limiter in place that could not be taken out of the signal path.

Now, it's true that fashions have changed and there is much more aggressive
limiting done these days. But to say that compression "wasn't done" on
the early reissues is completely incorrect.
--scott

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


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default Target CDs


re early digital,

can someone site an example of a commercially available digital recording that sounds audibly bad due to bad quality A/D converters of the era. I'd like to hear it.


m

  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

John Williamson:

I actually comprehend all of what you just
posted. I understand the need for light doses
compression and other processing *during
recording and mixing* as a means of leveling
control. In other words, whatever was done,
from recording to mixing to mastering, to
albums like "The Stranger" or "Thriller"
back in that era.



When CD came along, very often the master
tapes - the two channel stereo ones - for albums
like those were transferred flat to the digital master
tapes(quantized), and a CDglass master was made
from that. The way I would want it to be, no sausage
factory between this paragraph and the one above it.


Today, sausage is done during session, mixing,
and mastering of today's top hits, and other genres,
and sausage envelopes applied to new 24bit 'remasters'
of those same '70s-'80s era two-ch. masters. Which won't
see a PENNY of my money. There is modern music that
I do like, and download or buy CD of. I just level it in
my DAW or use mp3Gain for the stuff going to my phone,
etc, so it and the classic hits stuff are all roughly equally
loud.
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

John Williamson wrote: "However, as None says, this has all been explained to you and JackAss "

Why you even include a filth-spewing spam
-bot in the same ranks as yourself, Jack, Scott
D., Geoff and Mike R is beyond me! lol
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:35:58 AM UTC-4, wrote:
JJAck wrote: "You know what is interesting on early CDs? Generally,
no credits given who did the audio. It appears Columbia Records hired
their party people to do their audio work, since they probably lacked the
knowledge and equipment. "

Credits for engineering & mastering, for
the original vinyl album release are listed,
on the album cover shrunk down to fit
in the CD jewel case. Since those early
transfers were *largely* done flat, there
was no need for CD engineering or
mastering credits to be listed. As I
mentioned earlier, minor leveling or
pre-emphasis to existing masters was
just standard procedure at that time,
not worthy of mastering credit as is
the squash-boost-&-brickwall-limit
job done on MOST "remasters"
since 2000, and practically any new
artist work.


When issuing Sinatra for CD, EMI/Capitol hit a brickwall.
They had all the Mastering Notes, except the custom made audio equipment was gone or replaced, rendering Mastering notes useless.

From what I see of early CDs is lack of knowledge HOW the songs should sound.
About 2000, Sony issued some CD sets, various artists. Like you mentioned, the digital Y2k age was here, so they reworked their archives. Not that is happened often, but if you were looking for "hit" versions, what most people remember, you might be disappointed with CDs, where songs were remixed. No, not disappointed about the "audio", but content. Because people who remixed, accidentally left in sounds, like a sour drum riff, that never existed before!

I'm generally happy what audio man laid down on CD. If I feel it could sound better (see Mastering Notes above), I can always alter it.

Jack
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:16:20 AM UTC-4, wrote:
re early digital,

can someone site an example of a commercially available digital recording that sounds audibly bad due to bad quality A/D converters of the era. I'd like to hear it.


m


Mark, great question. I would love to hear, too!

Jack


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Target CDs

wrote:

can someone site an example of a commercially available digital recording that sounds audibly bad due to bad quality A/D converters of the era. I'd like to hear it.


Plenty of them.

One very offensive example I can think of from that era, though, is
the GRP "Digital Duke" recording. Now, it's aggressively multimiked and
incredibly bright and everything is in your face, but that's not the fault
exclusively of the conversion.

But.... listen to how notes die out... the reverb tails are almost chopped
off by the truncation. I'd never actually heard how bad truncation even
at 16 bits could be.

This is a DDD recording so there are at least three and possibly five
converters in the signal path.

But you can pick up just about anything from that era and hear the tonality
changing in the reverb tail as it drops down.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

Scott Dorsey wrote: "But to say that compression "wasn't done" on
the early reissues is completely incorrect.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra"

_______
I firgured there had to be a reason why
so many of my pre-1990 classical
symphony CDs all registered between
DR-12 & 14 on the Fubar/TT Dynamic
range snapshot. The ones made from
1970s or earlier LP master tapes. I'd
bet the vinyl versions would produce
DR values over 20 in most cases!

Sad they treated the superior format
that way.
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Target CDs

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:27:19 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:

can someone site an example of a commercially available digital recording that sounds audibly bad due to bad quality A/D converters of the era. I'd like to hear it.


Plenty of them.

One very offensive example I can think of from that era, though, is
the GRP "Digital Duke" recording. Now, it's aggressively multimiked and
incredibly bright and everything is in your face, but that's not the fault
exclusively of the conversion.

But.... listen to how notes die out... the reverb tails are almost chopped
off by the truncation. I'd never actually heard how bad truncation even
at 16 bits could be.

This is a DDD recording so there are at least three and possibly five
converters in the signal path.

But you can pick up just about anything from that era and hear the tonality
changing in the reverb tail as it drops down.
--scott

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


Back then, man probably didn't know the difference between a bit and a dog bite!
I was hoping existing analog recordings to digital.

Jack
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tatonik Tatonik is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Target CDs

Scott Dorsey wrote:

One very offensive example I can think of from that era, though, is
the GRP "Digital Duke" recording. Now, it's aggressively multimiked and
incredibly bright and everything is in your face, but that's not the fault
exclusively of the conversion.

But.... listen to how notes die out... the reverb tails are almost chopped
off by the truncation. I'd never actually heard how bad truncation even
at 16 bits could be.

This is a DDD recording so there are at least three and possibly five
converters in the signal path.

But you can pick up just about anything from that era and hear the tonality
changing in the reverb tail as it drops down.
--scott


I happen to own that album. I did hear the aggressive brightness and
that it generally sounded odd and a bit unpleasant, for want of a better
description, though I didn't specifically notice the reverb tails. But
then I'm not always the most critical of listeners.

According to the liner notes, these are the perpetrators of the Digital
Duke album:

Produced by Michael Abene and Mercer Ellington
Executive Producers: Dave Grusin and Larry Rosen
Recorded by Ed Rak at Clinton Recording Studios, NYC on the Mitsubishi
X-850 32-track digital recorder
Assisted by Rebecca Everett
Digitally mixed and edited by Josiah Gluck at The Review Room, NYC on
the Sony PCM 1630 Digital Audio System
Assisted by Jim Singer
Digitally mastered by Ted Jensen at Sterling Sound, NYC on the Neve
Digital Transfer Console
Special Thanks to [among others]: Phil Vachon, Mitsubishi Pro Audio
copyright 1987

(An Ellington album I prefer is one by the American Jazz Orchestra led
by John Lewis, from a year or two later. It has a looser feel and the
sound seems fuller.)

  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Target CDs

Tatonik:

So what Scott was pointing out was that
both production technique and converter
issues contributed to sound quality issues
on that album.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Eyes on target... Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Audio Opinions 17 June 23rd 09 05:47 AM
SPLC Target Pat Buchanan 127.0.0.1 Car Audio 0 September 21st 07 01:19 PM
HK Audio/Target Robert Meyer-Piening Pro Audio 0 January 7th 05 04:30 PM
FT: Target 28" Stands Da S Marketplace 2 October 9th 03 04:04 AM
FT: Target 28" Stands Da S Marketplace 0 October 8th 03 08:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"