Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 16/02/2016 2:28 AM, JackA wrote:
Of course adequate tools existed - none of it is rocket-surgery ! The problem was the rush to simply get stuff out asap. Funny!!! No, absolutely the case. geoff |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 16/02/2016 3:59 AM, JackA wrote:
No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines. No. Yes.... "With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression. The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead of a bulky 1630". So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? geoff |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 11:42:04 AM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
John Williamson wrote: On 15/02/2016 15:41, JackA wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:07:31 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote: Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the primary cause of this 128k bitrate. At the time, it was the best compromise available between quality and transmission bitrate, as the Fraunhofer coding was originally developed for phone companies to use on their (Then cutting edge) systems. At the time, it was the highest bitrate that could be converted in real time, if I remember correctly. You say Vocals, this person can't hear much difference!... http://forums.winamp.com/archive/ind.../t-229919.html I opted 160k, because it's tough to notice much difference, even 320k! I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of distortion. I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD playback with close to 100% accuracy, even on a laptop using decent headphones. I find that reasonably hard to believe. - SHAME WE CAN'T TEST HIM. Jack So can a number of people I've tried the experiment on. This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control properly? No Clever Hans effect*? *where people get tells from how the experiment is carried out. 160kbps stands out like a very sore thumb in this context. It's certainly different. -- Les Cargill |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
geoff asked: "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? "
Never peaking above -6dBfs? I own a few CDs like that. Whole thing was recorded at insanely low levels. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 1:58:07 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 16/02/2016 4:41 AM, JackA wrote: Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the primary cause of this 128k bitrate. Slow ? A typical song should take far less than a minute. Even 10 years ago. You weren't even around when MP3 hit the scene. Most all of us didn't know. I'm talking Win 95 days and a DOS encoder, took FOREVER to encode a single song. Maybe a 120MHz CPU! I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of distortion. Especially on playback equipment that masks it. Fidelity varies all over them place, let's not go there. But can far more easily detect missing detail, frequencies (esp upper mid and high) , and bizarre 'phasing' effects. Now, way back in Napster peer-peer days, I generally settled for 160k MP3s minimum. But, there was a 96k MP3 that sounded better than most higher bit rate MP3s will sound. Why I claim mastering quality has a LOT to do with MP3 sound. Jack geoff |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:50:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
geoff asked: "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? " Never peaking above -6dBfs? I own a few CDs like that. Whole thing was recorded at insanely low levels. A good CD for you, UK, The Pure Sound Of Elton John!! Mixed w/o any enhancements. I found it ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ -L- boring. Jack |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 15/02/2016 16:49, Les Cargill wrote:
John Williamson wrote: So can a number of people I've tried the experiment on. This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control properly? No Clever Hans effect*? One of them was trying to tell me that mp3 sounded better until I did an A/B switch using a live performance that I had recorded and converted myself, then he changed his tune. The only difference in the playback chain was the decoder software, so there was no level fudging to give a false impression, and the conversion was set for the highest quality I could manage at 320kbps. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
geoff wrote:
On 16/02/2016 3:59 AM, JackA wrote: "With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression. The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead of a bulky 1630". So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? That's also not really correct. The 1630 is the box that sits in front of the video recorder, it's not the recorder itself. And the 1630 was preceded by the 1610. And Sony DID offer a very horrible and clumsy editing system using those machines. When the Sonic system came out, it was mostly being used for editing digital data which would then be dumped back through a 1630 machine to ship to the pressing plant. This got more or less replaced with DDP files on Exabyte and then PMCDs came a few years later. The PMCD didn't come around until Kodak finally got a reliable CD-R machine. But... NONE of this equipment, save occasionally the Sonic workstation, was ever really used for processing. Throughout this whole evolution, everyone kept using their analogue processing chains. Most mastering rooms still do. So none of this statement really has anything at all to do with any processing that might be done in the mastering room. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
In article ,
wrote: geoff asked: "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? " Never peaking above -6dBfs? I own a few CDs like that. Whole thing was recorded at insanely low levels. You don't get it, do you? I suspect you never will. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 16/02/2016 8:52 a.m., JackA wrote:
You weren't even around when MP3 hit the scene. Que ?!!! geoff |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:01:43 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 16/02/2016 3:59 AM, JackA wrote: No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines. No. Yes.... "With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression. The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead of a bulky 1630". So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? I posted the link before, have to find it, from someone who was in the (re)mastering business!! Jack geoff |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:01:43 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 16/02/2016 3:59 AM, JackA wrote: No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines. No. Yes.... "With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression. The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead of a bulky 1630". So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? They referred to the louder as a "hot" mix. Even Sony claimed a few bits lost out of 65+k wouldn't be noticed. Assume this is what Bill Inglot of Rhino Records did (hot mix), though he claimed he just adjusted the tape azimuth better! Jack geoff |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
John Williamson wrote:
On 15/02/2016 16:49, Les Cargill wrote: John Williamson wrote: So can a number of people I've tried the experiment on. This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control properly? No Clever Hans effect*? One of them was trying to tell me that mp3 sounded better until I did an A/B switch using a live performance that I had recorded and converted myself, then he changed his tune. The only difference in the playback chain was the decoder software, so there was no level fudging to give a false impression, and the conversion was set for the highest quality I could manage at 320kbps. Interesting - I suspect the material I've compared just does not show up the differences. -- Les Cargill |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
Les Cargill wrote:
John Williamson wrote: On 15/02/2016 16:49, Les Cargill wrote: John Williamson wrote: So can a number of people I've tried the experiment on. This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control properly? No Clever Hans effect*? One of them was trying to tell me that mp3 sounded better until I did an A/B switch using a live performance that I had recorded and converted myself, then he changed his tune. The only difference in the playback chain was the decoder software, so there was no level fudging to give a false impression, and the conversion was set for the highest quality I could manage at 320kbps. Interesting - I suspect the material I've compared just does not show up the differences. It seems like the most clear effects are on transients. Fiddles and harpsichords show the difference up much more obviously, and a sparse arrangement where the transients can be heard in isolation can make it that much more clear. Also anything that has real stereo imaging with phase differences at lower frequencies seems to get horribly mucked up. Intensity "stereo" seems to survive the process pretty well. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
On 16/02/2016 12:07 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
It seems like the most clear effects are on transients. Fiddles and harpsichords show the difference up much more obviously, and a sparse arrangement where the transients can be heard in isolation can make it that much more clear. Also anything that has real stereo imaging with phase differences at lower frequencies seems to get horribly mucked up. Intensity "stereo" seems to survive the process pretty well. --scott Quite handy that a delicately played 6-steel-string acoustic guitar can get turned into a 12-string-though-a-phasor though ;-) geoff |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT Joe Walsh
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: John Williamson wrote: On 15/02/2016 16:49, Les Cargill wrote: John Williamson wrote: So can a number of people I've tried the experiment on. This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control properly? No Clever Hans effect*? One of them was trying to tell me that mp3 sounded better until I did an A/B switch using a live performance that I had recorded and converted myself, then he changed his tune. The only difference in the playback chain was the decoder software, so there was no level fudging to give a false impression, and the conversion was set for the highest quality I could manage at 320kbps. Interesting - I suspect the material I've compared just does not show up the differences. It seems like the most clear effects are on transients. Fiddles and harpsichords show the difference up much more obviously, and a sparse arrangement where the transients can be heard in isolation can make it that much more clear. Also anything that has real stereo imaging with phase differences at lower frequencies seems to get horribly mucked up. Intensity "stereo" seems to survive the process pretty well. --scott I just need to do the experiment again. -- Les Cargill |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ohm Walsh speakers | Audio Opinions | |||
Ohm's With the Walsh Driver | Tech | |||
Ohm's With the Walsh Driver | Pro Audio | |||
Ohm's With the Walsh Driver | Pro Audio | |||
WTB: Ohm Walsh F | Marketplace |