0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 33998 times.
...many of the so-called "high res" downloads available today - from some big name "audiophile" sources - are in fact upsampled Redbook and not genuine high res.
The digital recording (and release) process continues to evolve. A properly done SACD or 24/192 recording played back properly will leave any current consumer analogue format eating sonic dust.
Silent scream is a great way to describe it. Barry, what artifact in SACD drives that? My speaker has a tweeter that extends out to 40kHz and it is fairly revealing of bad recordings particularly in the higher frequencies....
Even if we consider dynamic range, from this standpoint, having the noise floor 96 dB down from max level, as it is (in theory) with 16-bits, sounds more than adequate, particularly for most pop recordings where the real dynamic range of the final result rarely gets much past 12 dB and if often (scarily!) less.
Barry,So is the 12gb range more or less related to the loudness wars or just the style of the "pop" recordings? We all recognize the quality of the mastering is key, but maybe some style of music will lend itself better to HiRez Audio than others..
debatable obviously. System dependent as Woodsyi just confirmed....
Robin Hood, thanks for the links. Based on graph #2, which depicts energy scatter of an impulse, one would conclude that analog is still the optimal medium. Presumably, finding a "digital" technology that allows true imprinting the analog form without resorting to digital reconstruction would be ideal.I gather from this thread that no one has done a recent A+B of analog tape versus hi rez? Barry, are your observations based on sonic memory? I presumed so. I will be acquiring a modified deck (no output transformers, etc) in the not too distant future along with a DAC based that is centered on an AKM chip used in a million dollar console and not simply a prosumer or consumer dac chip. I will hopefully be able to do a few shootouts and report back.... Nomad, please provide examples of properly done material and proper playback equipment.
Robin Hood, thanks for the links. Based on graph #2, which depicts energy scatter of an impulse, one would conclude that analog is still the optimal medium. Presumably, finding a "digital" technology that allows true imprinting the analog form without resorting to digital reconstruction would be ideal.
I gather from this thread that no one has done a recent A+B of analog tape versus hi rez? Barry, are your observations based on sonic memory? I presume so.
I will be acquiring a modified deck (no output transformers, etc) in the not too distant future along with a DAC based that is centered on an AKM chip used in a million dollar console and not simply a prosumer or consumer dac chip. I will hopefully be able to do a few shootouts and report back.... ...
Actually that isn't correct. While most of what I currently work on is digitally sourced, I have not been completely away from analog tape, played on Studer, MCI and Ampex machines. (Haven't seen a Sculley in a while.)Analog 1/2" at 30 ips can do some wonderful things. But I've never felt it sounded like my mic feed. Never felt that way about digital either, until I heard the ULN-8 doing 24/192.
Analog 1/2" at 30 ips can do some wonderful things. But I've never felt it sounded like my mic feed. Never felt that way about digital either, until I heard the ULN-8 doing 24/192.
Nomad, I have some Hoffman recordings, including the gold cd of Tull, and I must say, I am less than wowed. I know he does have a following. Must be a system resolution thing as you suggested. One of the best Redbook recordings I own is Touching Folklore, by Mario Suzuki. McFabulous. For better or worse, I love the Dead and have a lot of hippy, jam band, live recordings. I will have to check out the 24/96 of American Beauty.
...when people talk about saturation and analog tape, what exactly are they talking about? I also know musician types who feel that state that digital offerings as a whole are surgical sounding and lacking in soul. After hearing a family friend play his antique French piano (whose name escapes me), I was reminded how limited digital playback is in rendering that natural resonance and timbre.
...I have a friend who is also a recording engineer who is one of those purists who loves tubed mics, the Neve console, and hates Protools. I am sure you come across this philosophy. He is also, not surprisingly, an analog tape head.
...In terms of implementation and dac chips, yes indeed. You can still create a turd out of gold. Time will tell. The manufacturer is a master of power supplies, so that should be additive if you believe some of Nordosts recent research on power and jitter. I remember you told me that a linear supply on your ULN-8 had no benefit over the native switching supply which is a little surprising.
Barry, on a scale of 1-10(best) how would you rank the sonic qualities of the ULN-8 for recording and the sonic qualities of the ULN-8 for playback?
One of the albums for purchase was done at 24/192 and the other album was done at 24/96. Why was the Lift album limited to 24/96 since you are using a 24/192 recorder?
Can you provide a list of hi rez albums that you feel lives up to hi rez hype?
