Sampling rates

[jason]

This may be of interest. Or it may just stir up the latent hornets...

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-
rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/26/2015 11:47 PM, Jason wrote:
> This may be of interest. Or it may just stir up the latent hornets...

> http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-
> rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

As articles on the subject go, this one isn't too bad. He neglects group
delay (what most simply call "phase shift") as a significant side effect
of vintage filter designs in addition to the small droop in frequency
response at the high end. At least it's not one more article about how
much of the music is missing because of sampling.

What's important to remember is that at the "real people's" price point,
digital recording _technology_ is better than ever. Many professional
recording engineers will adopt higher sample rates by choice when they
can hear the difference and their budget allows. Others will provide
whatever the client asks for. But today, at least when it comes to
commercial recordings that find their way to listeners' ears, any
degradation in sound from what they strive for in the control room when
tracking is due to conscious mutilation for reasons that hardly go
beyond "we have to do it because everyone else does it." (kind of like
airline baggage fees)

Audiophiles, however, can be sold anything. Bless 'em. They keep people
doing legitimate development work in business so that improved
technology will be available to the rest of us when there's a good
reason to adopt it.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "tracking is due to conscious mutilation for reasons that hardly go"

You mentioned it, and I agree!

As for the article, it seems to suggest that higher
sampling rates are good mainly for production,
but matter less in delivery. I agree there too.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/27/2015 5:28 PM, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "tracking is due to conscious mutilation for
reasons that hardly go"

Actually, what I wrote was:
.. . . when it comes to commercial recordings that find their way to
listeners' ears, any degradation in sound from what they strive for in
the control room when tracking is due to conscious mutilation for
reasons that hardly go beyond "we have to do it because everyone else
does it."

That makes more sense than what you quoted.

> As for the article, it seems to suggest that higher
> sampling rates are good mainly for production,
> but matter less in delivery. I agree there too.

There is indeed some validity to this, and therefore it's not at all
uncommon for a studio to record original tracks at 96 kHz sample rate.
But the reason why recordings delivered in a high resolution format
often sound better than CDs is because they get special treatment that's
appropriate for audiophiles who know how to use the volume control on
their playback system rather than trying to make it as loud as
everything else has grown.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 8:26:38 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/27/2015 5:28 PM, wrote:
> > Mike Rivers wrote: "tracking is due to conscious mutilation for
> reasons that hardly go"
>
> Actually, what I wrote was:
> . . . when it comes to commercial recordings that find their way to
> listeners' ears, any degradation in sound from what they strive for in
> the control room when tracking is due to conscious mutilation for
> reasons that hardly go beyond "we have to do it because everyone else
> does it."
>
> That makes more sense than what you quoted.
>
> > As for the article, it seems to suggest that higher
> > sampling rates are good mainly for production,
> > but matter less in delivery. I agree there too.
>
> There is indeed some validity to this, and therefore it's not at all
> uncommon for a studio to record original tracks at 96 kHz sample rate.
> But the reason why recordings delivered in a high resolution format
> often sound better than CDs is because they get special treatment that's
> appropriate for audiophiles who know how to use the volume control on
> their playback system rather than trying to make it as loud as
> everything else has grown.

Audiophiles? Never heard of one. I have a very tough time finding people who can tell a HQ CD remastered/remixed recording, let alone audiophile recordings. To me, audiophile records were boring. Really. Just my two cents.

Jack

>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 28/12/2015 12:26 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> But the reason why recordings delivered in a high resolution format
> often sound better than CDs is because they get special treatment that's
> appropriate for audiophiles who know how to use the volume control on
> their playback system rather than trying to make it as loud as
> everything else has grown.

Right, and as I have said for a decade or two, doesn't require a "high
resolution format" simply an alternative audiophile mix. But then they
couldn't sell more expensive equipment to suckers with that business
model. :-(

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>As articles on the subject go, this one isn't too bad. He neglects group
>delay (what most simply call "phase shift") as a significant side effect
>of vintage filter designs in addition to the small droop in frequency
>response at the high end. At least it's not one more article about how
>much of the music is missing because of sampling.

It talks about a lot of more severe issues with older converter designs,
and that's a big deal. I remember hearing how different the SV3700 sounded
at 44.1 and 48 ksamp/sec and thinking something must be wrong, and it turned
out indeed something was terribly wrong with the converter design.

And it does specifically talk about how if higher sample rates improve the
sound that there must be some inherent converter problem, which is true.

But which it neglects is that it is a lot easier to tell that something
sounds different, but it's a lot harder to tell if it's better or worse.
So a lot of things that sound brighter get first perceived as being better
when they are actually degrading sound. This is really, really important.

Also... it neglects the whole point that the wider the system bandwidth,
the more intermodulation products you have to deal with given the same basic
nonlinearity. Restricting bandwidth reduces the effects of distortion
farther on down the chain.

>What's important to remember is that at the "real people's" price point,
>digital recording _technology_ is better than ever.

And the one thing that has caused this has been the jump from ladder converters
to sigma-delta converters that began in the 1990s. This has made it possible
to make very linear converters very inexpensively on one piece of rock.

>Audiophiles, however, can be sold anything. Bless 'em. They keep people
>doing legitimate development work in business so that improved
>technology will be available to the rest of us when there's a good
>reason to adopt it.

Invariably when audiophiles are being sold a line of goods, it's specifically
because they hear things being different and instantly believe it must be
better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 29/12/2015 12:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Invariably when audiophiles are being sold a line of goods, it's specifically
> because they hear things being different and instantly believe it must be
> better.

They don't even need to hear a difference. Just like religion, faith is
all many people need!

Trevor.

[Frank Stearns]

Trevor > writes:

>On 29/12/2015 12:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Invariably when audiophiles are being sold a line of goods, it's specifically
>> because they hear things being different and instantly believe it must be
>> better.

>They don't even need to hear a difference. Just like religion, faith is
>all many people need!

True, and there are other aspects/variations as well:

- sound quality is secondary to the money spent; it's all about status and showing
how much money you can throw around.

- The "Emperor's New Clothes" aspect... the system actually sounds worse than canine
excrement. But because of flim flam either from one's own "thinking" or being
convinced by "authorities", it's the best sounding system ever. Only really
cultured, intelligent, and annointed people can hear those devine properties, and
surely you (the mark) belong to that club, right?

But well, no, it's just excrement.

Frank
Mobile Audio


--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>- sound quality is secondary to the money spent; it's all about status and showing
>how much money you can throw around.

There's still a lot of that, but most of the people in that category have
moved to getting expensive and awful home theatre systems instead of expensive
and awful home stereo systems. A lot of the high end home shows have either
shut down or turned into home theatre shows.

>- The "Emperor's New Clothes" aspect... the system actually sounds worse than canine
>excrement. But because of flim flam either from one's own "thinking" or being
>convinced by "authorities", it's the best sounding system ever. Only really
>cultured, intelligent, and annointed people can hear those devine properties, and
>surely you (the mark) belong to that club, right?

I see two things going on. First of all, there is the point I made earlier
that people tend to think something that sounds different must be better.
Really different? Must be really better.

Secondly is that people get used to particular colorations and they expect
those colorations. If you spend all your time listening to big horn speakers
and no time listening to live acoustic music, you get to want everything to
sound like it's coming from big horn speakers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 30/12/2015 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> I see two things going on. First of all, there is the point I made earlier
> that people tend to think something that sounds different must be better.
> Really different? Must be really better.

Subjectively comparing two systems that are "really different" to each
other, both are "really different"! The choice of which is "really
better" simply comes down to personal bias when no objective measure is
taken. Frankly I have never had a problem with that until they start
telling me that one is more *accurate* simply because they think it is.
The greatest example of that is how many people still claim vinyl is
more accurate, rather than simply more pleasing to them. When I point
out the difference they still insist vinyl is always more accurate.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor, et al:

The biggest differentiator is the SOURCE
itself. Feed that $20G home stereo
crap, and it will sound like crap. Feed it
quality, and it will sound great!

[geoff]

On 30/12/2015 4:13 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> On 30/12/2015 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> I see two things going on. First of all, there is the point I made
>> earlier
>> that people tend to think something that sounds different must be better.
>> Really different? Must be really better.
>
> Subjectively comparing two systems that are "really different" to each
> other, both are "really different"! The choice of which is "really
> better" simply comes down to personal bias when no objective measure is
> taken. Frankly I have never had a problem with that until they start
> telling me that one is more *accurate* simply because they think it is.
> The greatest example of that is how many people still claim vinyl is
> more accurate, rather than simply more pleasing to them. When I point
> out the difference they still insist vinyl is always more accurate.
>
> Trevor.
>

I believe it is more accurate when Alan Parsons says it is. YMMV.

geoff

[geoff]

On 30/12/2015 4:53 p.m., wrote:
> Trevor, et al:
>
> The biggest differentiator is the SOURCE
> itself. Feed that $20G home stereo
> crap, and it will sound like crap. Feed it
> quality, and it will sound great!
>
Maybe, or maybe not. But not necessarily "more accurate". You have to
have heard the original master ( or have a very good ideas what it is
likely to sound like) in order to claim that.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 30/12/2015 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> I see two things going on. First of all, there is the point I made earlier
>> that people tend to think something that sounds different must be better.
>> Really different? Must be really better.
>
>Subjectively comparing two systems that are "really different" to each
>other, both are "really different"! The choice of which is "really
>better" simply comes down to personal bias when no objective measure is
>taken.

To some extent, but it's easy to gimmick a test, even an A/B test. And
people selling stereos do.

Go to your local Bose dealer and get their demo. They have a standardized
procedure which is a brilliant piece of salesmanship. It uses very short
listening segments in such a way that the brighter sounding speaker will
almost always sound better.

> Frankly I have never had a problem with that until they start
>telling me that one is more *accurate* simply because they think it is.
>The greatest example of that is how many people still claim vinyl is
>more accurate, rather than simply more pleasing to them. When I point
>out the difference they still insist vinyl is always more accurate.

I think it's foolish to claim that vinyl is always more accurate, but if you
pick a random disc out of the library and compare the vinyl one with the CD,
it's not unusual to find the vinyl issue to be more accurate. The problem
is that the end user has no control over that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 30/12/2015 4:13 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> On 30/12/2015 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> I see two things going on. First of all, there is the point I made
>>> earlier
>>> that people tend to think something that sounds different must be better.
>>> Really different? Must be really better.
>>
>> Subjectively comparing two systems that are "really different" to each
>> other, both are "really different"! The choice of which is "really
>> better" simply comes down to personal bias when no objective measure is
>> taken. Frankly I have never had a problem with that until they start
>> telling me that one is more *accurate* simply because they think it is.
>> The greatest example of that is how many people still claim vinyl is
>> more accurate, rather than simply more pleasing to them. When I point
>> out the difference they still insist vinyl is always more accurate.
>
>I believe it is more accurate when Alan Parsons says it is. YMMV.

Would you settle for Wavy Gravy saying so?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 31/12/2015 4:21 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:

>>
>> I believe it is more accurate when Alan Parsons says it is. YMMV.
>
> Would you settle for Wavy Gravy saying so?
> --scott
>

If I knew of and respected Wavy Gravy's opinion, yes.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 30/12/2015 9:59 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 30/12/2015 4:13 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> On 30/12/2015 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> I see two things going on. First of all, there is the point I made
>>> earlier
>>> that people tend to think something that sounds different must be
>>> better.
>>> Really different? Must be really better.
>>
>> Subjectively comparing two systems that are "really different" to each
>> other, both are "really different"! The choice of which is "really
>> better" simply comes down to personal bias when no objective measure is
>> taken. Frankly I have never had a problem with that until they start
>> telling me that one is more *accurate* simply because they think it is.
>> The greatest example of that is how many people still claim vinyl is
>> more accurate, rather than simply more pleasing to them. When I point
>> out the difference they still insist vinyl is always more accurate.
>>
>
> I believe it is more accurate when Alan Parsons says it is. YMMV.

Yep, that's the main problem. Many people believe what others tell them
without any supporting evidence. Religion and politics and better
examples than audio though.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 30/12/2015 10:02 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 30/12/2015 4:53 p.m., wrote:
>> Trevor, et al:
>>
>> The biggest differentiator is the SOURCE
>> itself. Feed that $20G home stereo
>> crap, and it will sound like crap. Feed it
>> quality, and it will sound great!

Well duh!

> Maybe, or maybe not. But not necessarily "more accurate". You have to
> have heard the original master ( or have a very good ideas what it is
> likely to sound like) in order to claim that.

Not *if* your definition of "quality" IS more accurate. And frankly I'd
simply dispute any other definition.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 31/12/2015 2:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 30/12/2015 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> I see two things going on. First of all, there is the point I made earlier
>>> that people tend to think something that sounds different must be better.
>>> Really different? Must be really better.
>>
>> Subjectively comparing two systems that are "really different" to each
>> other, both are "really different"! The choice of which is "really
>> better" simply comes down to personal bias when no objective measure is
>> taken.
>
> To some extent, but it's easy to gimmick a test, even an A/B test. And
> people selling stereos do.


Which as I just said is a "subjective" comparison with no "objective
measure".


> Go to your local Bose dealer and get their demo. They have a standardized
> procedure which is a brilliant piece of salesmanship. It uses very short
> listening segments in such a way that the brighter sounding speaker will
> almost always sound better.

There are plenty of brighter speakers than Bose, so they should fail
that test then.


>> Frankly I have never had a problem with that until they start
>> telling me that one is more *accurate* simply because they think it is.
>> The greatest example of that is how many people still claim vinyl is
>> more accurate, rather than simply more pleasing to them. When I point
>> out the difference they still insist vinyl is always more accurate.
>
> I think it's foolish to claim that vinyl is always more accurate, but if you
> pick a random disc out of the library and compare the vinyl one with the CD,
> it's not unusual to find the vinyl issue to be more accurate.

As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
actual media capability, whether it be tape, vinyl, CD, SACD or anything
else. That the majority of people still don't get it saddens me as to
the level of human intelligence. :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 31/12/2015 7:58 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 31/12/2015 4:21 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I believe it is more accurate when Alan Parsons says it is. YMMV.
>>
>> Would you settle for Wavy Gravy saying so?
>> --scott
>>
>
> If I knew of and respected Wavy Gravy's opinion, yes.

So what makes you respect someone else's *opinion* over your own, or
more importantly scientific measurements? Do you at least check their IQ
and knowledge of the subject, or is it simply blind faith?
Ever thought of researching the subject properly before forming your own
opinion instead?

The problem as I see it is that most people do not have time to research
everything properly for themselves, but still like to have an opinion on
everything.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 31/12/2015 6:23 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 31/12/2015 7:58 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 31/12/2015 4:21 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe it is more accurate when Alan Parsons says it is. YMMV.
>>>
>>> Would you settle for Wavy Gravy saying so?
>>> --scott
>>>
>>
>> If I knew of and respected Wavy Gravy's opinion, yes.
>
> So what makes you respect someone else's *opinion* over your own, or
> more importantly scientific measurements? Do you at least check their IQ
> and knowledge of the subject, or is it simply blind faith?
> Ever thought of researching the subject properly before forming your own
> opinion instead?
>
> The problem as I see it is that most people do not have time to research
> everything properly for themselves, but still like to have an opinion on
> everything.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

Um, so you've never heard of, heard the work of, read anything about,
heard opinions of respected others, of Alan Parsons ? Or just don't
believe anything *anybody* says unless you've actually verified each
little detail yourself ?

Or maybe you have and simply don't think he knows much about music or
recording .....

geoff

[geoff]

On 31/12/2015 6:12 PM, Trevor wrote:

>
> As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
> actual media capability, whether it be tape, vinyl, CD, SACD or anything
> else. That the majority of people still don't get it saddens me as to
> the level of human intelligence. :-(

Unfortunately we're not all as intelligent as you Trev. If we were, the
world would have no problems ;-)

The telling thing to me re the 'vinyl accuracy' argument is that you can
carefully digitally record the output of a vinyl playback, and a careful
digital replay may retain all the 'qualities' of the recorded vinyl
playback. Comapre that with a vinyl copy from a vinyl playback and see
how that stacks up.

Of course that doesn't relate to *accuracy* wrt the original master, ,
unless there existed a master that was not specifically destined for vinyl.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
actual media capability"


And yet those mastering processes/decisions are
far more sonically audible than the differences
between formats(mp3, CD, and high-res lossless).
Anyone stating otherwise is full of it.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "The telling thing to me re the 'vinyl accuracy' argument is that you can
carefully digitally record the output of a vinyl playback, and a careful
digital replay may retain all the 'qualities' of the recorded vinyl
playback. Comapre that with a vinyl copy from a vinyl playback and see
how that stacks up.

Of course that doesn't relate to *accuracy* wrt the original master, ,
unless there existed a master that was not specifically destined for vinyl. "


This^^ guy is trying to sell us something.

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 11:53, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "The telling thing to me re the 'vinyl accuracy' argument is that you can
> carefully digitally record the output of a vinyl playback, and a careful
> digital replay may retain all the 'qualities' of the recorded vinyl
> playback. Comapre that with a vinyl copy from a vinyl playback and see
> how that stacks up.
>
> Of course that doesn't relate to *accuracy* wrt the original master, ,
> unless there existed a master that was not specifically destined for vinyl. "
>
>
> This^^ guy is trying to sell us something.
>
Yes, he's selling accurate recording methods. Even the best vinyl isn't
accurate, but it can sound quite pleasing.

It is possible (just) to make a digital recording, that with the right
playback equipment and room, and your eyes closed, can make you feel as
if you're in the concert hall. This can not possibly be done with vinyl
or analogue tape.

Multi-channel recordings of individual instruments and voices, even if
they are performing together, which are then added together to make a
composite recording, then what you get can not be a faithful
reproduction of the original performance as heard in the hall, no matter
what the medium is. It can, however, be a very pleasing rendition of a
virtual performance. I was very disappointed to hear a choir once who
insisted on using sound reinforcement, and it sounded exactly as if
someone had out on a close mic'd recording and the choir were miming to
it. In a hall without sound reinforcement, they actually sounded a lot
nicer.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "
It is possible (just) to make a digital recording, that with the right
playback equipment and room, and your eyes closed, can make you feel as
if you're in the concert hall. ***This can not possibly be done with vinyl
or analogue tape***. "

***Baloney***!

Use minimalist miking techniques - coincident
pair if desired. Use one of those heads with the
mics in the 'ears'. Pay attention to the biggest
instrument in the room - the room itself! Make
it a good production, and it can be done in analog
or digital.

The biggest difference is processing in Post - how
much or how little. Lay off the excessive processing,
and you'll have a very realistic capture of what
went on in that hall.

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 12:47, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "
> It is possible (just) to make a digital recording, that with the right
> playback equipment and room, and your eyes closed, can make you feel as
> if you're in the concert hall. ***This can not possibly be done with vinyl
> or analogue tape***. "
>
> ***Baloney***!
>
> Use minimalist miking techniques - coincident
> pair if desired. Use one of those heads with the
> mics in the 'ears'. Pay attention to the biggest
> instrument in the room - the room itself! Make
> it a good production, and it can be done in analog
> or digital.
>
> The biggest difference is processing in Post - how
> much or how little. Lay off the excessive processing,
> and you'll have a very realistic capture of what
> went on in that hall.
>
Says the voice of someone with little or no experience of real life
recording. Go to an acoustic concert, record it, then see how close you
can get to that sound with analogue and digital equipment. Digital gets
closer every time.

I've done it both ways, and my experience backs up what I wrote. It even
works for location recordings of random
sounds you'd hear as you walk around the place.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 11:51, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
> actual media capability"
>
>
> And yet those mastering processes/decisions are
> far more sonically audible than the differences
> between formats(mp3, CD, and high-res lossless).
> Anyone stating otherwise is full of it.
>
Post production processing is irrelevant in comparing the sound quality
of various formats. If you don't believe that, take a 24 bit recording,
then work through to 16 bit, then/ mp3 at various rates, and the
differences in quality will be obvious even on the average domestic
equipment.

The fact that processing needs to be different for analogue and digital
formats to get the best out of either is proof that the formats sound
different.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
Says the voice of someone with little or no experience of real life
recording. Go to an acoustic concert, record it, then see how close you
can get to that sound with analogue and digital equipment. Digital gets
closer every time.

I've done it both ways, and my experience backs up what I wrote. It even
works for location recordings of random
sounds you'd hear as you walk around the place.
- show quoted text -"

Yeah, digital gets closer alright, if you apply
a ton of EQ, dynamics, and reverb to the thing
in mastering!
Yeah, customers buying the thing will hear a
huuuge difference, and automatically think it's
"better".

I'm just saying, record the same performance to
both analog and digital decks, same mics, same
everything else, and aside from minor background
hiss, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Take the digital into post, perform the
aforementioned processing, make a CD of it,
and you better bet there'll be a sonic difference!

I'm not saying analog is better, not at all. I'm just
pointing out that in comparing an analog and
digital recording of the same program, the difference
most folks are going to hear was applied in post.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "Post production processing is irrelevant in
comparing the sound quality of various formats"

True. Which is why an apples-to-apples comparison
must be made of UNmastered analog and digital
recording must be made. Something the record or
download buying public doesn't have a chance to do.

It's already been processed(as you said, for different
formats, or as I said: to make it sound *different* in
order to sell more records) by the time it reaches the
shelves - or Amazon.

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 13:57, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Says the voice of someone with little or no experience of real life
> recording. Go to an acoustic concert, record it, then see how close you
> can get to that sound with analogue and digital equipment. Digital gets
> closer every time.
>
> I've done it both ways, and my experience backs up what I wrote. It even
> works for location recordings of random
> sounds you'd hear as you walk around the place.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Yeah, digital gets closer alright, if you apply
> a ton of EQ, dynamics, and reverb to the thing
> in mastering!
> Yeah, customers buying the thing will hear a
> huuuge difference, and automatically think it's
> "better".
>
Rent or buy a digital recorder such as the Zoom H4 or similar and a pair
of decent microphones, go to an acoustic concert and record it, or just
set the gear up in the street or next to a railway line. While you're
there, do another recording with the best analogue recorder you can
find, say a Nagra portable, and compare the results. Use a pair of mic
splitters to make it fair.

You will find that to make the analogue recording sound anything like
the original, you have to use a lot of processing both during and after
recording, while the digital will sound clean straight off the recorder.
Tape is not even roughly linear, while any modern A-D converter will be
linear to within the limits of most test equipment.

> I'm just saying, record the same performance to
> both analog and digital decks, same mics, same
> everything else, and aside from minor background
> hiss, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.
>
You've never actually done this with decent playback gear, have you?

> Take the digital into post, perform the
> aforementioned processing, make a CD of it,
> and you better bet there'll be a sonic difference!
>
Then apply the same processing to your analogue recording, and the
digital will still sound better. Apply the processing you need to get a
vinyl version to sound acceptable, and the CD will still sound better.

> I'm not saying analog is better, not at all. I'm just
> pointing out that in comparing an analog and
> digital recording of the same program, the difference
> most folks are going to hear was applied in post.
>
Do you prefer cheddar or mozarella? Is chalk better than cheese?

Run the output from the microphones into a digital recorder, and on
playback you will hear exactly what went on in the hall. Run an analogue
recorder in parallel, and when you play that back over decent speakers
or headphones you will hear why professionals went over to digital long ago.

A lot of CDs of older hits have been reprocessed to match the current
fashions by applying compression and other effects to the analogue
master tapes. Some bands and producers even use analogue tape decks to
add distortion and "warmth" to digital recordings. This does not mean
that digital needs processing to make it sound good, it means that's
what people want to listen to, and the same processing (Apart from
adding tape distortion) would need to be applied to analogue to make it
sound the way that's now expected by some of the market.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 14:26, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "Post production processing is irrelevant in
> comparing the sound quality of various formats"
>
> True. Which is why an apples-to-apples comparison
> must be made of UNmastered analog and digital
> recording must be made. Something the record or
> download buying public doesn't have a chance to do.
>
I have, and have done blind listening tests with members of the public.
They could easily tell the difference.

> It's already been processed(as you said, for different
> formats, or as I said: to make it sound *different* in
> order to sell more records) by the time it reaches the
> shelves - or Amazon.
>
Irrelevant to comparisons of sound quality between formats.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "I have, and have done blind listening tests with members of the public. "

How do THEY know that nothing was done to one
that wasn't done to the other?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 31/12/2015 2:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Go to your local Bose dealer and get their demo. They have a standardized
>> procedure which is a brilliant piece of salesmanship. It uses very short
>> listening segments in such a way that the brighter sounding speaker will
>> almost always sound better.
>
>There are plenty of brighter speakers than Bose, so they should fail
>that test then.

If you actually compared them with some other brand of speakers, but you
can't do that at a Bose dealer.

Honestly, it is worth doing the demo because it very, very carefully calculated
to make bad speakers sound good, and to make the more expensive speakers in
the line sound better.

>As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
>actual media capability, whether it be tape, vinyl, CD, SACD or anything
>else. That the majority of people still don't get it saddens me as to
>the level of human intelligence. :-(

The problem is that in the real world, mastering variations exist, and people
have to work around them. People who are actually sitting down and listening
to music don't care about what the theoretical best system is, they want to
know how to make their particular piece of music sound best.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>>
>Says the voice of someone with little or no experience of real life
>recording. Go to an acoustic concert, record it, then see how close you
>can get to that sound with analogue and digital equipment. Digital gets
>closer every time.

I'm not sure I buy that anymore. Yes, there was an age when digital
systems all sounded harsh and glassy and analogue systems all sounded
smeary.

But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good analogue
gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound so much more
accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines that it's
eerie), and we now have come to the point where the best tape machines and
the best digital converters are both so much better than the best speakers
and the best microphones that it really doesn't even matter anymore.

>I've done it both ways, and my experience backs up what I wrote. It even
>works for location recordings of random
>sounds you'd hear as you walk around the place.

I continue to be very fond of the key-jingle test too.
--scott

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

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 16:06, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>>>
>> Says the voice of someone with little or no experience of real life
>> recording. Go to an acoustic concert, record it, then see how close you
>> can get to that sound with analogue and digital equipment. Digital gets
>> closer every time.
>
> I'm not sure I buy that anymore. Yes, there was an age when digital
> systems all sounded harsh and glassy and analogue systems all sounded
> smeary.
>
> But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good analogue
> gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound so much more
> accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines that it's
> eerie), and we now have come to the point where the best tape machines and
> the best digital converters are both so much better than the best speakers
> and the best microphones that it really doesn't even matter anymore.
>
There is that to it. Maybe I've not listened to the newest analogue
stuff enough.

>> I've done it both ways, and my experience backs up what I wrote. It even
>> works for location recordings of random
>> sounds you'd hear as you walk around the place.
>
> I continue to be very fond of the key-jingle test too.
>
Ah, yes. Tests every little thing from mic to speaker.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 15:19, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "I have, and have done blind listening tests with members of the public. "
>
> How do THEY know that nothing was done to one
> that wasn't done to the other?
>
Because they trusted me to do as I'd said I had. They had also heard the
performers live, although not that exact performance.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/31/2015 10:11 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> You will find that to make the analogue recording sound anything like
> the original, you have to use a lot of processing both during and after
> recording, while the digital will sound clean straight off the recorder.
> Tape is not even roughly linear, while any modern A-D converter will be
> linear to within the limits of most test equipment.

I get your point and understand your passion, but I think you're taking
this way too far. Whether or not a recording sounds like the original is
far more dependent on the microphones (and their placement) and the
playback speakers than whether the recording medium is analog or digital.

Analog recorders are remarkably good. It has always been the intent of
their designers to make them as linear as possible. Now I'll concede
that it's difficult to get THD down below 1% and frequency response over
the audio bandwidth flatter than +/- 1 dB, but those parameters are
easily achievable on a well designed and maintained recorder.

While a digital recorder will have lower THD (and THD isn't the best
measurement of what's wrong when you hear something wrong) and flatter
frequency response, but when it comes to real world sources and
listeners, a good analog recorder will do just fine. Where digital has
it over analog tape is that there's no flutter and 30 dB or more less
hiss. Bad flutter will make a piano sound "nothing like the original"
but it won't affect a railroad train.

Now what happens between recording and commercial release is a different
story. The only reason why analog recordings (newly) released in digital
format aren't severely buggered at the tail end of the production
process is because people like you-know-who insist that analog sounds
better. So the record companies make it so, and charge extra for it.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 16:48, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/31/2015 10:11 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>> You will find that to make the analogue recording sound anything like
>> the original, you have to use a lot of processing both during and after
>> recording, while the digital will sound clean straight off the recorder.
>> Tape is not even roughly linear, while any modern A-D converter will be
>> linear to within the limits of most test equipment.
>
> I get your point and understand your passion, but I think you're taking
> this way too far. Whether or not a recording sounds like the original is
> far more dependent on the microphones (and their placement) and the
> playback speakers than whether the recording medium is analog or digital.
>
Yes, the weakest link has been the transducers for a while now.

> Analog recorders are remarkably good. It has always been the intent of
> their designers to make them as linear as possible. Now I'll concede
> that it's difficult to get THD down below 1% and frequency response over
> the audio bandwidth flatter than +/- 1 dB, but those parameters are
> easily achievable on a well designed and maintained recorder.
>
As I said to Scott, maybe I need to listen to more modern analogue
stuff. I sort of gave up on it when it became so much cheaper to get the
performance I wanted using digital gear. That and losing the razor blades...

When I mentioned processing, though, I was including things like Dolby
which are included in most recorders. Tape without a compander is just
too noisy for my liking, and there are artefacts from the compander I
don't like.

> While a digital recorder will have lower THD (and THD isn't the best
> measurement of what's wrong when you hear something wrong) and flatter
> frequency response, but when it comes to real world sources and
> listeners, a good analog recorder will do just fine. Where digital has
> it over analog tape is that there's no flutter and 30 dB or more less
> hiss. Bad flutter will make a piano sound "nothing like the original"
> but it won't affect a railroad train.
>
True.

> Now what happens between recording and commercial release is a different
> story. The only reason why analog recordings (newly) released in digital
> format aren't severely buggered at the tail end of the production
> process is because people like you-know-who insist that analog sounds
> better. So the record companies make it so, and charge extra for it.
>
Which is where I may be reading Thekma wrongly, but he seems to be
strongly linking the post production process with the format, when
that's not necessarily the case.

When I record something, I record it to sound accurate, then I ask the
client how they'd like it to sound. Even classical music people now like
a fair amount of gain riding or compression, as they've grown used to a
more limited dynamic range on a recording than at a real live show.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
> On 31/12/2015 14:26, wrote:
<snip>
> Irrelevant to comparisons of sound quality between formats.
>


Digital stuff you can buy at Guitar Center is capable of playing back
vanishingly close to what was recorded. This is objectively
true. You can demonstrate this by round-tripping test signals.

I'm sure it's possible to improve on it, but there's very little
to be gained from that.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>>
>As I said to Scott, maybe I need to listen to more modern analogue
>stuff. I sort of gave up on it when it became so much cheaper to get the
>performance I wanted using digital gear. That and losing the razor blades...

And that is absolutely, absolutely true. I am shocked at how good some
of the cheap digital gear is now, and it has come to the point where it
requires little fiddling or maintenance.

>When I mentioned processing, though, I was including things like Dolby
>which are included in most recorders. Tape without a compander is just
>too noisy for my liking, and there are artefacts from the compander I
>don't like.

Processing in the analogue domain is generally problematic, in part
because it's difficult to get delays in the analogue world. So things
like look-ahead limiters are effectively impossible. This makes things
like completely transparent companding out of the question.

>> listeners, a good analog recorder will do just fine. Where digital has
>> it over analog tape is that there's no flutter and 30 dB or more less
>> hiss. Bad flutter will make a piano sound "nothing like the original"
>> but it won't affect a railroad train.
>>
>True.

The thing is that even a _tiny_ amount of flutter is audible, and I am
convinced that this is part of what people like analogue tape machines
for. It can provide a "blending" where individual sounds are merged into
one ensemble. This can be a very useful thing for multitrack work where
you are building things up from isolated tracks, but it is of course a
terrible thing for a minimalist recording.

I was staggered at how much less of that blending you got from an Ampex 440
than from a 350, though... and the ATR-100 has really none of it if it is
set up perfectly.

>When I record something, I record it to sound accurate, then I ask the
>client how they'd like it to sound. Even classical music people now like
>a fair amount of gain riding or compression, as they've grown used to a
>more limited dynamic range on a recording than at a real live show.

And of course it's important to ask the client who is going to be listening
to it and how.
--scott

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

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>John Williamson wrote: "
>It is possible (just) to make a digital recording, that with the right
>playback equipment and room, and your eyes closed, can make you feel as
>if you're in the concert hall. ***This can not possibly be done with vinyl
>or analogue tape***. "

>***Baloney***!

>Use minimalist miking techniques - coincident
>pair if desired. Use one of those heads with the
>mics in the 'ears'. Pay attention to the biggest
>instrument in the room - the room itself! Make
>it a good production, and it can be done in analog
>or digital.

>The biggest difference is processing in Post - how
>much or how little. Lay off the excessive processing,
>and you'll have a very realistic capture of what
>went on in that hall.

Well, truth be told, John is correct here. All other things being equal -- and with
good converters, of course -- the bypassing of HF roll-off, HF cross-talk, HF
distortion, et al (vinyl), and the elimination of scrape flutter and various head
issues (tape), I too would usually go for good digital over good analog.

Now, if you want those various analog abberations as FX, that's fine, it's an
artistic call. But for the more "pure" delivery system -- especially these days with
modern converters (certainly not the horrors of yesteryear) -- digital is the
clear winner.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

snips

>I'm just saying, record the same performance to
>both analog and digital decks, same mics, same
>everything else, and aside from minor background
>hiss, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.

You perhaps need a better monitor chain? Hiss is the least of the problems.

>Take the digital into post, perform the
>aforementioned processing, make a CD of it,
>and you better bet there'll be a sonic difference!

The processing you noted is by no means required (I'm coming from a
classical/acoustic music POV, not pop. In the latter case, you might indeed need a
lot of processing to do the mangling automatically provided by analog.)

Again, that's more of an artistic decision. I just like to start clean and add to
taste. And having teethed in analog going back some 40+ years, modern digital is
a blessed relief.

>I'm not saying analog is better, not at all. I'm just
>pointing out that in comparing an analog and
>digital recording of the same program, the difference
>most folks are going to hear was applied in post.

I'll meet you halfway here; much will depend on the monitoring. In the average
living room, there might not be a hugely noticeable difference (much of course will
depend on the music and the performance). Bring it into a good room, however, and
you might be surprised at the sonic differences.

But good music will overshadow everything else -- and it's also nice when there's
nothing at all to distract from that good music.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "I get your point and understand your passion, but I think you're taking
this way too far. Whether or not a recording sounds like the original is
far more dependent on the microphones (and their placement) and the
playback speakers than whether the recording medium is analog or digital. "

THANK YOU MIKE!!! (clap clap clap)

Like I said, the digital proponents on
here have SOMETHING TO SELL.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>Like I said, the digital proponents on
>here have SOMETHING TO SELL.

Well, of course, but so do the analogue proponents. Life is just that way.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Trevor, et al:
>
> The biggest differentiator is the SOURCE
> itself. Feed that $20G home stereo
> crap, and it will sound like crap. Feed it
> quality, and it will sound great!

Sort of like a great photo, will look good on just about anything.

Jack

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 4:19 AM, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "I have, and have done blind listening tests with members of the public. "
>
> How do THEY know that nothing was done to one
> that wasn't done to the other?
>

How do WE know you are a real person and not just some automaton
programmed to harp on about loudness etc ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 1:32 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 31/12/2015 11:53, wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "The telling thing to me re the 'vinyl accuracy' argument
>> is that you can
>> carefully digitally record the output of a vinyl playback, and a careful
>> digital replay may retain all the 'qualities' of the recorded vinyl
>> playback. Comapre that with a vinyl copy from a vinyl playback and see
>> how that stacks up.
>>
>> Of course that doesn't relate to *accuracy* wrt the original master, ,
>> unless there existed a master that was not specifically destined for
>> vinyl. "
>>
>>
>> This^^ guy is trying to sell us something.

Logic, truth ? Yeah OK, we know you are not buying.

>>
> Yes, he's selling accurate recording methods. Even the best vinyl isn't
> accurate, but it can sound quite pleasing.
>
> It is possible (just) to make a digital recording, that with the right
> playback equipment and room, and your eyes closed, can make you feel as
> if you're in the concert hall. This can not possibly be done with vinyl
> or analogue tape.

And the digital recording of the vinyl playback can sound just as
'pleasing' as the original vinyl playback, with whatever euphonic
artifacts tickled that pleasurable response.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 1:47 AM, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "
> It is possible (just) to make a digital recording, that with the right
> playback equipment and room, and your eyes closed, can make you feel as
> if you're in the concert hall. ***This can not possibly be done with vinyl
> or analogue tape***. "
>
> ***Baloney***!
>
> Use minimalist miking techniques - coincident
> pair if desired. Use one of those heads with the
> mics in the 'ears'. Pay attention to the biggest
> instrument in the room - the room itself! Make
> it a good production, and it can be done in analog
> or digital.
>
> The biggest difference is processing in Post - how
> much or how little. Lay off the excessive processing,
> and you'll have a very realistic capture of what
> went on in that hall.
>


What about recording with *no* post, other than simple linear
optimisation of levels for whatever playback medium. Plenty of that is
available.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 2:57 AM, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Says the voice of someone with little or no experience of real life
> recording. Go to an acoustic concert, record it, then see how close you
> can get to that sound with analogue and digital equipment. Digital gets
> closer every time.
>
> I've done it both ways, and my experience backs up what I wrote. It even
> works for location recordings of random
> sounds you'd hear as you walk around the place.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Yeah, digital gets closer alright, if you apply
> a ton of EQ, dynamics, and reverb to the thing
> in mastering!
> Yeah, customers buying the thing will hear a
> huuuge difference, and automatically think it's
> "better".
>
> I'm just saying, record the same performance to
> both analog and digital decks, same mics, same
> everything else, and aside from minor background
> hiss, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.

You've clearly never actually done this then. Or your playback equipment
was compromised to the point of masking even non-subtle differences.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 9:08 AM, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "I get your point and understand your passion, but I think you're taking
> this way too far. Whether or not a recording sounds like the original is
> far more dependent on the microphones (and their placement) and the
> playback speakers than whether the recording medium is analog or digital. "
>
> THANK YOU MIKE!!! (clap clap clap)
>
> Like I said, the digital proponents on
> here have SOMETHING TO SELL.
>


No. They are doing the best they can with what and in which way they
think can get the best results. Call that some clandestine agenda if you
like.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 5:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>
> But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good analogue
> gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound so much more
> accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines

I wonder how the difference between the ATR-100 and (say) the latest
Zoom is ? Without even thinking about the $ difference (per channel).

I have heard neither.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 4:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>
> The problem is that in the real world, mastering variations exist, and people
> have to work around them. People who are actually sitting down and listening
> to music don't care about what the theoretical best system is, they want to
> know how to make their particular piece of music sound best.
> --scott
>


However it is very easy to do a set of recordings in controlled
conditions. Don't most of us do this from time to time out of curiosity,
for various reasons comparing various parameters ?

Reminds me of the experiments (non-scientific) I did with friends who
could not discern a difference between generic interlnk cables, Monster
Cable ones, and unsheilded galvanised iron coat-hangers. Obviously not
phonolevel signals though ;-)

geoff

[david gourley[_2_]]

geoff > said...news:Q8GdnecSwbb_LxjLnZ2dnUU7-
:

> On 1/01/2016 11:54 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 1/01/2016 4:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that in the real world, mastering variations exist, and
>>> people
>>> have to work around them. People who are actually sitting down and
>>> listening
>>> to music don't care about what the theoretical best system is, they
>>> want to
>>> know how to make their particular piece of music sound best.
>>> --scott
>>>
>>
>>
>> However it is very easy to do a set of recordings in controlled
>> conditions. Don't most of us do this from time to time out of curiosity,
>> for various reasons comparing various parameters ?
>>
>> Reminds me of the experiments (non-scientific) I did with friends who
>> could not discern a difference between generic interlnk cables, Monster
>> Cable ones, and unsheilded galvanised iron coat-hangers. Obviously not
>> phonolevel signals though ;-)
>>
>> geoff
>
>
> Oh yeah, and all the best from 2016.
>
>
> geoff
>

Back atcha! You have a head-start on us over here in the states.

david

[Trevor]

On 31/12/2015 5:40 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 31/12/2015 6:12 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>>
>> As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
>> actual media capability, whether it be tape, vinyl, CD, SACD or anything
>> else. That the majority of people still don't get it saddens me as to
>> the level of human intelligence. :-(
>
> Unfortunately we're not all as intelligent as you Trev. If we were, the
> world would have no problems ;-)

Can't argue with that! :-)


> The telling thing to me re the 'vinyl accuracy' argument is that you can
> carefully digitally record the output of a vinyl playback, and a careful
> digital replay may retain all the 'qualities' of the recorded vinyl
> playback. Comapre that with a vinyl copy from a vinyl playback and see
> how that stacks up.

No need, anyone with a brain knows second generation tape or vinyl is
crap upon crap.



> Of course that doesn't relate to *accuracy* wrt the original master, ,
> unless there existed a master that was not specifically destined for vinyl.

Irrelevant to "accuracy". The playback simply needs to be accurate as to
what is delivered, no matter how inaccurate that is to the original
recording. As I already said, mastering variations have *nothing* to do
with accuracy *capabilities* of various media, even if they do affect
what you hear.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 31/12/2015 5:31 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 31/12/2015 6:23 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> On 31/12/2015 7:58 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 31/12/2015 4:21 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>> I believe it is more accurate when Alan Parsons says it is. YMMV.
>>>>
>>>> Would you settle for Wavy Gravy saying so?
>>>> --scott
>>>
>>> If I knew of and respected Wavy Gravy's opinion, yes.
>>
>> So what makes you respect someone else's *opinion* over your own, or
>> more importantly scientific measurements? Do you at least check their IQ
>> and knowledge of the subject, or is it simply blind faith?
>> Ever thought of researching the subject properly before forming your own
>> opinion instead?
>>
>> The problem as I see it is that most people do not have time to research
>> everything properly for themselves, but still like to have an opinion on
>> everything.
>
> Um, so you've never heard of, heard the work of, read anything about,
> heard opinions of respected others, of Alan Parsons ? Or just don't
> believe anything *anybody* says unless you've actually verified each
> little detail yourself ?

Right, I take nothing as Gospel without verification. Anyone involved in
scientific research who does otherwise is simply a quack. Even the
greatest scientists often have OPINIONS that are incorrect. That is why
we separate opinion from verifiable data. That many people do not, and
don't even think it necessary is what is wrong with much of the world
today! :-(


> Or maybe you have and simply don't think he knows much about music or
> recording .....

I'm sure he knows things I don't. I'm also sure he doesn't know
everything! And probably doesn't know everything you think he does.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/01/2016 12:50 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 31/12/2015 11:51, wrote:
>> Trevor wrote: "As I've always said, mastering variations are
>> irrelevant to claims about
>> actual media capability"
>>
>>
>> And yet those mastering processes/decisions are
>> far more sonically audible than the differences
>> between formats(mp3, CD, and high-res lossless).
>> Anyone stating otherwise is full of it.

Of course they can be and often are, who is it you think said otherwise?
Obviously not me since I already said that.

>>
> Post production processing is irrelevant in comparing the sound quality
> of various formats. If you don't believe that, take a 24 bit recording,
> then work through to 16 bit, then/ mp3 at various rates, and the
> differences in quality will be obvious even on the average domestic
> equipment.
>
> The fact that processing needs to be different for analogue and digital
> formats to get the best out of either is proof that the formats sound
> different.

Actually proof that their capabilities are different, and thus may sound
different when mastered to suit the different capabilities. However one
may simply record to digital the output of a turntable or tape deck, and
*NO* difference will be heard, unless you really cock it up. As we all
know the reverse is not true.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/01/2016 2:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 31/12/2015 2:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Go to your local Bose dealer and get their demo. They have a standardized
>>> procedure which is a brilliant piece of salesmanship. It uses very short
>>> listening segments in such a way that the brighter sounding speaker will
>>> almost always sound better.
>>
>> There are plenty of brighter speakers than Bose, so they should fail
>> that test then.
>
> If you actually compared them with some other brand of speakers, but you
> can't do that at a Bose dealer.
>
> Honestly, it is worth doing the demo because it very, very carefully calculated
> to make bad speakers sound good, and to make the more expensive speakers in
> the line sound better.

No thanks, I've heard more than enough Bose in my life to know I don't
want to buy them, so why waste my time with their sales tactics, which
I'm already well aware of, and are not exclusive to Bose anyway?


>
>> As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
>> actual media capability, whether it be tape, vinyl, CD, SACD or anything
>> else. That the majority of people still don't get it saddens me as to
>> the level of human intelligence. :-(
>
> The problem is that in the real world, mastering variations exist, and people
> have to work around them. People who are actually sitting down and listening
> to music don't care about what the theoretical best system is, they want to
> know how to make their particular piece of music sound best.

Right, mastering variations exist, and may be better or worse on
different formats for different recordings. I just don't see how
choosing an inferior system because there is some badly done digital
mastering (just as there was badly done vinyl mastering) helps anybody.
What we need to do is standardise on the the better system since it is
now far cheaper, and produce different mastering variations within that
(CD) format to suit everyone.
The only reason that is not done AFAIC is that there is still money to
be made selling more expensive (but inferior) equipment and media to
morons. Not that I care, other than it means we don't currently get the
choice of mastering variations on CD very often. Fortunately I can
"remaster" some CD's to suit myself to some degree, but unsquashing
hypercompressed and clipped CD's not as good as it would be if I could
buy a less compressed version, and squash it myself if I actually wanted
that.

[Trevor]

On 1/01/2016 9:49 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 1/01/2016 5:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good
>> analogue gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound so much more
>> accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines
>
> I wonder how the difference between the ATR-100 and (say) the latest
> Zoom is ? Without even thinking about the $ difference (per channel).

You have to consider both the huge difference in machine cost as well as
the huge difference in media cost to feed them, and ask yourself if a
having a huge *loss* of dynamic range capability is worth that much to
you. If the answer is yes, you might be better off spending the money on
a therapist instead! :-)

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 7:35 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 1/01/2016 9:49 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 1/01/2016 5:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good
>>> analogue gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound
>>> so much more
>>> accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines
>>
>> I wonder how the difference between the ATR-100 and (say) the latest
>> Zoom is ? Without even thinking about the $ difference (per channel).
>
> You have to consider both the huge difference in machine cost as well as
> the huge difference in media cost to feed them, and ask yourself if a
> having a huge *loss* of dynamic range capability is worth that much to
> you. If the answer is yes, you might be better off spending the money on
> a therapist instead! :-)
>
> Trevor.
>


But waaay less money for more dynamic range ;-)

OK, maybe not the Zoom (or maybe). Yes, DR not the only factor !

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 1/01/2016 5:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> But.... these days you can buy very good digital gear and very good analogue
>> gear (and let me say that the ATR-100 can be set up to sound so much more
>> accurate than any of the previous generations of tape machines
>
>I wonder how the difference between the ATR-100 and (say) the latest
>Zoom is ? Without even thinking about the $ difference (per channel).

Much of the difference is that you can set the ATR-100 up so that it isn't
transparent at all, if that's what you want.

The issue with the Zoom recorders are the mike preamps and gain controls
more than converters. The recording part is the easy part.
--scott

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