trott3r wrote:
Lo,
At 04:35 31/07/2012, Archimago wrote:
cliveb wrote:
Using the word fashion hits the nail on the head. Extreme
compression
and peak limiting is the currently fashionable way to master
recordings.
But as we all know, fashions come and go.
Alas, this
cliveb wrote:
Using the word fashion hits the nail on the head. Extreme compression
and peak limiting is the currently fashionable way to master recordings.
But as we all know, fashions come and go.
...
And so it is with mastering these days. The herd mentality requires that
they
Hello,
http://www.cimprecords.com/about/ cimp records make CDs without
compression:
CIMP records are digitally recorded live to two tracks. Digital
recording allows for a vanishingly low noise floor and tremendous
dynamic range. There is no compression, homogenization, eq-ing,
post-recording
Lo,
At 04:35 31/07/2012, Archimago wrote:
cliveb wrote:
Using the word fashion hits the nail on the head. Extreme compression
and peak limiting is the currently fashionable way to master recordings.
But as we all know, fashions come and go.
Alas, this fashion has been going on now since
cliveb wrote:
Using the word fashion hits the nail on the head. Extreme compression
and peak limiting is the currently fashionable way to master recordings.
But as we all know, fashions come and go.
Alas, this fashion has been going on now since ~1995! I was shocked
recently that the Dark
michael123 wrote:
Phil is techie.. he just took a difference between the tracks and
amplified it to the desired level... until he began hearing speech
If you want to determine whether there is a perceptually audible
difference between two versions of a recording, listening to an
amplified
mlsstl wrote:
Unfortunately, the fads fashions in the recording industry right now
are not now very favorable to those who like their music natural
sounding.
Using the word fashion hits the nail on the head. Extreme compression
and peak limiting is the currently fashionable way to master
Wombat wrote:
It proves nothing. The cd version was treated different, no matter what
you read on the net.
treated differently or not - does not matter.
24-bit version has more meaningful data that its CD version, that's the
fact.
michael123 wrote:
treated differently or not - does not matter, that's the message I am
trying to explain.
24-bit version has more meaningful data that its CD version, that's the
fact.
Same goes with 192/24 vs 96/24, certain albums on HDTracks do sound
different (better or worse is a
michael123 wrote:
treated differently or not - does not matter, that's the message I am
trying to explain.
24-bit version has more meaningful data that its CD version, that's the
fact.
Same goes with 192/24 vs 96/24, certain albums on HDTracks do sound
different (better or worse is a
michael123 wrote:
24-bit version has more meaningful data that its CD version, that's the
fact.
For humans and audio there is not anything meaningtfull in the 8bits
more. 16bits is more thenm enough. You can´t hear anything of these
added 8bit if the 16bits above play music. Masking alone
Wombat wrote:
For humans and audio there is not anything meaningtfull in the 8bits
more. 16bits is more thenm enough. You can´t hear anything of these
added 8bit if the 16bits above play music. Masking alone forbids this.
So listening 24bit noisefloors can indeed be a different experience as
michael123 wrote:
Phil is techie.. he just took a difference between the tracks and
amplified it to the desired level... until he began hearing speech
It is not a noise, I remember it was something around -60db.. you can
search this forum..
Yes, we had exactly the same discussion more then a
michael123 wrote:
Phil is techie.. he just took a difference between the tracks and
amplified it to the desired level... until he began hearing speech
It is not a noise, I remember it was something around -60db.. you can
search this forum..
You can blame recording engineers, marketing
Good setup will excel with quality recordings.
Not every 192/24 is better than 96/24 but some do.
Maybe something is done to degrade the quality of the later, but it does
not matter.. right?
Same Phil Leigh posted the difference between Beatles EMI recordings -
plain CD and 24-bit USB version.
michael123 wrote:
Same Phil Leigh posted the difference between Beatles EMI recordings -
plain CD and 24-bit USB version. When he amplified the difference, Phil
could actually distinguish the words of the song!
Wonder if anyone's ever done this with the Kingsmen's Louie Louie?
;-)
michael123 wrote:
Good setup will excel with quality recordings.
Same Phil Leigh posted the difference between Beatles EMI recordings -
plain CD and 24-bit USB version.
When he amplified the difference, Phil could actually distinguish the
words of the song!
I think that this pretty much
44.1/16 and dimensions of the disc were chosen just to keep 74min of
audio for the Wilhelm Furtwängler's recording of Ludwig van Beethoven's
Symphony No. 9 from the 1951 Bayreuth Festival..
BTW my design gurus for digital are Ed Meitner, Daniel Weiss, Andreas
Koch..
Weiss MAN301 is so yammy :)
michael123 wrote:
44.1/16 and dimensions of the disc were chosen just to keep 74min of
audio for the Wilhelm Furtwängler's recording of Ludwig van Beethoven's
Symphony No. 9 from the 1951 Bayreuth Festival..
There is similar paper on Meridian website (I think) that states that
the
adamdea wrote:
I have heard the beethoven 9 story, but i'm not sure it's true. IIRC
There were other reasons for picking 16/44.1 and frankly the arguments
as to why it is good enough are pretty cogent.
16 bits was chosen because it was the limit of what was practically
achievable at the time.
adamdea wrote:
Someone will no doubt pop up saying that 32/384 is the only way. I think
that the whole concept of good enough upsets audiophiles.
There's a certain psychology that seems innate in a certain percent of
the population. It seems their default mode is that if X is good, then
2X
bburroughs wrote:
Well, I didn't think it was possible to answer that question in just a
few paragraphs without resorting to esoteric math and engineering, but
Adam's description is really excellent. Anyone interested in digital
audio should read and try to understand what he wrote - it's an
Well, I didn't think it was possible to answer that question in just a
few paragraphs without resorting to esoteric math and engineering, but
Adam's description is really excellent. Anyone interested in digital
audio should read and try to understand what he wrote - it's an
excellent summary of
magiccarpetride wrote:
I was talking about many 'out of print' recordings that sadly seem
available only in mp3 format. Publishing houses don't seem to think it's
worth their while to invest in reissuing many culturally and musically
important recordings from the '60s and the '70s, so we're
banned for life wrote:
+1
Try the recently remastered Blue In Green from Kind Of Blue - Miles
Davis
(Of course, I'm not listening to an MP3 version)
Hi Banned for life!
Can you give more details of this recently remastered version of Kind of
Blue? Where can I get a copy and in what
SBGK wrote:
life's too short to listen to mp3, who records/mixes/masters in mp3 ?
The amount of reviews of digital music reduces the chance of having to
listen to shoddily recorded/mixed/mastered 24/192 FLAC.
I enjoy 16/44.1 up to 24/96 (24/192 is a bit of a luxury due to space
etc) Could
I went to the Lavry website and downloaded the article on Nyquist and
sampling theory. Well I must take my hat off to Dan - this article is
the best I have EVER read on Nyquist sampling theorem. I think it will
take a couple of more reads before every aspect of it sinks in. If you
have not had a
Nope, repetitive waveform and sample period have nothing to do with
accuracy. The math (and implementation) works the same for one cycle or
1,000,000.
AndyN wrote:
If I understand correctly; for the Nyquist sampling to result in a
perfectly reconstructible waveform (at the receiving end) the
AndyN wrote:
If I understand correctly; for the Nyquist sampling to result in a
perfectly reconstructible waveform (at the receiving end) the sampled
waveform must be repetitive and the waveform must be sampled for a
period that is long in comparison to the waveform. This can be seen on a
AndyN wrote:
If I understand correctly; for the Nyquist sampling to result in a
perfectly reconstructible waveform (at the receiving end) the sampled
waveform must be repetitive and the waveform must be sampled for a
period that is long in comparison to the waveform.
The requirement for
darrenyeats wrote:
Common sense at last. Funny how red book keeps on getting better as you
add room treatments and better loudspeakers...16/44 is by far the
smallest problem, if problem it is, in even the very best
installations.
Probably the biggest barrier to realism is the way music is
magiccarpetride wrote:
I would much rather listen to a well recorded, well mixed and mastered
mp3 than to a shoddily recorded/mixed/mastered 24/192 FLAC.
+1
Try the recently remastered Blue In Green from Kind Of Blue - Miles
Davis
(Of course, I'm not listening to an MP3 version)
SlimChances wrote:
Yet My Golden Ears require at least 24/196 to listen to Muskrat Love
The Captain and Tennille (1976)
Love your pic. Now I know how some here hear so well. I wasn't away of a
Beats version.
bfl
+---+
magiccarpetride wrote:
I would much rather listen to a well recorded, well mixed and mastered
mp3 than to a shoddily recorded/mixed/mastered 24/192 FLAC.
life's too short to listen to mp3, who records/mixes/masters in mp3 ?
The amount of reviews of digital music reduces the chance of having
SBGK wrote:
life's too short to listen to mp3, who records/mixes/masters in mp3 ?
I doubt that any audiophile type would save their own personal
collection to MP3. That said, when I want to discover new music (and
who doesn't?), I listen to internet radio, which is almost exclusively
MP3.
Common sense at last. Funny how red book keeps on getting better as you
add room treatments and better loudspeakers...16/44 is by far the
smallest problem, if problem it is, in even the very best installations.
Probably the biggest barrier to realism is the way music is recorded.
Five mics for a
Yet My Golden Ears require at least 24/196 to listen to Muskrat Love
The Captain and Tennille (1976)
SlimChances's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=165
View this thread:
If I understand correctly; for the Nyquist sampling to result in a
perfectly reconstructible waveform (at the receiving end) the sampled
waveform must be repetitive and the waveform must be sampled for a
period that is long in comparison to the waveform. This can be seen on a
'scope where a
AndyN wrote:
If I understand correctly; for the Nyquist sampling to result in a
perfectly reconstructible waveform (at the receiving end) the sampled
waveform must be repetitive and the waveform must be sampled for a
period that is long in comparison to the waveform. This can be seen on a
http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
TheOctavist's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52700
View this thread:
40 matches
Mail list logo
