Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#18
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DAT = .WAV @ changing sampling rates | Pro Audio | |||
Sampling rates and scaling | Pro Audio | |||
Demand for even higher sampling rates | Pro Audio | |||
Lavry article on sampling rates, online | High End Audio | |||
Why 24/96 sampling isn't necessarily better-sounding than 24/44 sampling | Pro Audio |