avatar

gtoledo3

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,000 Member Since:23/10/2013

#41 [url]

May 27 16 2:25 PM

Sometimes I listen back to favorites and realize that the only reason I thought a particular sound was good, was because I liked the song and performance. The song and performance have somehow justified the sound that was used. Don't shoot me, but I often think that about the Hendrix records, and even some Beatles stuff.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

zmix

Aqua Marine

Posts: 3,887 Member Since:20/01/2011

#42 [url]

May 28 16 7:48 AM

gtoledo3 wrote:
Sometimes I listen back to favorites and realize that the only reason I thought a particular sound was good, was because I liked the song and performance. The song and performance have somehow justified the sound that was used. Don't shoot me, but I often think that about the Hendrix records, and even some Beatles stuff.

This is exactly what we do for a living, we create a sense of entity using the sound and the performance and present it to the public.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,042 Member Since:04/02/2011

#43 [url]

May 28 16 7:53 AM

Over time, if the music is culturally important enough, what once may have been considered a "flaw" becomes a thing other people try to emulate in a (often misguided) attempt to use it as a cultural signifier of some sort.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

maarvold

Aqua Marine

Posts: 2,933 Member Since:23/01/2011

#44 [url]

May 28 16 8:37 AM

drknob wrote:

bob olhsson wrote:
......It ignored the fact that one needs to learn what to listen for in isolation before being able to identify it. Once you know what to listen for either by study or, in most cases, stumbling across it, the artifact will remain a distraction from that point on.

 

I've heard Sean Olive speak on this subject wrt his work at Harmann. They have developed a team of expert listeners who are very skilled at quantifying subtleties that 'casual' listeners might miss.


These are the kind of people I'd like to have on my evaluation team.  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

wireline

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,114 Member Since:24/01/2011

#45 [url]

May 28 16 8:44 AM

bob olhsson wrote:

weedywet wrote:
I consider it part of my job(s) to choose what I consider the best alternative at each juncture. 
It's not a question of what I could 'get away with'; it's about aiming for excellence. 

Exactly! The artist is betting the next step in their career on what we do.

I get this...completely.  But must ask the next question in the progression: at what point do these things become so indiscernable that they become cost prohibitive, counter-productive, or something worse?  An artist/engineer/studio/anyone can go to such lengths that a project is NEVER finished, never good enough.  

One thing all too forgotten is the gear choices don't make for better songs, better delivery systems, and such.  I've been told for 25 years my thinking is wrong, but it still seems to me the things that people still buy - thus continuing the engineering profession - were the ones that the music mattered before all else.  

Given my druthers, I'd have nothing but the highest order of everything for my limited recording clients and my own libraries...but the cost/benefit drops faster than a pop singer's modesty.

Ken Morgan

Please...Give It A Rest

Quote    Reply   
avatar

paulyd

Gold Finger

Posts: 298 Member Since:28/01/2011

#46 [url]

May 29 16 2:01 PM

Whether or not something might benefit from a format with higher-than-CD resolution depends on where it started off and what happened to it along the way. To use a video metaphor, a VHS tape can be transferred to digital, cleaned up in a video editing app, and burned to Blu-ray, but...VHS. However, well-decoded CDDA or 16-bit PCM can sound great and, as others have pointed out, it's amazing how much your auditory system will forgive if the music is near to your heart. 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ericb

Gold Finger

Posts: 663 Member Since:01/02/2011

#47 [url]

May 29 16 3:44 PM

I'd like to spend some more time with DSD, because the little bits I've heard have been really good. But I've been more or less satisfied with 24 bit PCM. It just doesn't seem like there are a lot of viable choices for me to use DSD outside of field recording and mix capturing/mastering. I guess the Korg and Tascam units can be chained, and there is the Sonoma, but that's a pretty high price for multitrack with a lot less available processing possibilities.

Last Edited By: ericb May 29 16 3:57 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

jaykadis

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,391 Member Since:24/01/2011

#48 [url]

May 29 16 11:25 PM

The Sonoma was pretty exciting when it was first introduced. Some of the engineers that worked on the Dyaxis, which Studer ultimately took over, worked on the Sonoma. For the purpose of recording music that doesn't require extensive manipulation, it sounded great. Unfortunately SACD missed the mark and Sony lost interest in the Sonoma.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

bob olhsson

Aqua Marine

Posts: 3,300 Member Since:25/01/2011

#49 [url]

May 30 16 1:53 PM

Actually SACD surround came far closer to replacing the CD than most people realize. Everybody but Warner's was on board but Napster struck before the large scale pressing plants were completed and that was the end of labels investing in anything.

www.audiomastery.com Bob's room 615 562-4346 georgetownmasters.com Georgetown Masters 615 254-3233 www.thewombforums.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

chrisj

Gold Finger

Posts: 935 Member Since:22/02/2011

#50 [url]

May 30 16 2:48 PM

I would really like to see this multitrack DSD stuff get more accessible. I would build a mad crazy mixing board with LCR pan switches and Davelizers for EQs or some such thing, and start making music without editing (or with whatever minimal editing it has) and without plugins and DAW trickery. I'd just run with it. I'd be so happy, it'd be such fun.

Stands to reason I would like it. Back in the day when I was checking out my audio proficiencies and inadequacies on double blind tests (using incredibly poor equipment compared to what I've got now), I found that I had no trouble sorting out resolution issues (hearing lossy audio like 320K double-blind against PCM, using a castanet sample by Arny Kreuger) but I was positively hopeless about hearing wow and flutter. I just didn't hear that stuff at all.

Ever since, I've had every sympathy for people who turned to CDs because they couldn't stand pitch issues: I proved to my satisfaction that I'm way more tolerant of those, therefore if someone was much more bothered by that stuff they would never, ever like typical analog playback (perhaps not even physical tape machines, which also flutter). However, I've never had anyone cut me much slack for preferring high word lengths in digital, schemes like DSD or analog recording. Seems a pity.

Maybe that means eventually I'll be able to buy a once-valuable multichannel DSD rig, or even a dedicated DSD rig of that nature. Since it's just digital and software and the ability to pump a lot of data over a buss, I can't see such a thing remaining in the tens of thousands of dollars, unless it's for scarcity value alone. I'd like to see a little box with basic multichannel punch-in capabilities and multiple analog ins and outs.

In fairness, if you don't mess with the recording ITB it's awful easy to have much of that with about $1500 worth of modern converters. There's really no practical reason I should be dissatisfied with my MOTU 16a, other than 'it doesn't like to run high sample rates for long periods' (if it sits around idle at 96K for hours, it ends up needing to be reset: never even tried letting it sit around at 192K for hours seeing intermittent use)

I'd quite like to have a '16 TRS in, 16 TRS out, all DSD' box to play with, even if I had to run a dedicated program for the 'tape transport' aspect and not a normal DAW. I'm getting into Renoise lately which is most atypical. Not sure if Thunderbolt can handle 32 IO channels of DSD, but if it can sort of do that many 24/192K it seems not impossible (haven't done the math)

Chris Johnson, airwindows.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

darin k

Gold Finger

Posts: 902 Member Since:26/01/2011

#51 [url]

May 30 16 3:39 PM

According to the Tascam manual, you can sync multiple DSD recorders together. You can record on all synced units together, or playback on the master and record on the slave(s). You always have to start recording from the beginning of the track no matter what you're doing, so whole takes only (no punching in or just recording the chorus, etc.).  Each unit is either playing back or recording, so you cannot record on just one track on a machine at a time - you have to record on both.

Darin K.

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help