Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 707
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 707
Well, that's a given. Certain parts of our bodies resonate at different frequencies and their harmonic components. How we perceive this is another story.

Quote:

However, this is more about the rest of the analog signal path vs. digital.

I'm beginning to believe more and more that the analog "musical" superiority is, in all likelihood, conditioning - we all grew up on analog formats - we expect analog distortion to exist in a mix, therefore it "doesn't sound right" when it doesn't exist, and we deem the digital format, which does not contain such distortion, to be inferior.
Digital has it's distortions, too. To play the other side of the field, digital is not this "so beyond perfect" format that we just don't know how to comprend that yet! Digital conversion creates artifacts that can't always be filtered completely. Many of these artifacts can be eliminated by increasing bit depth and sample rate. Of course, other artifacts are introduced and then new filters have to be designed.

adam


studioman adam
[][][][][][][][][][][][]
"uh........OK?"
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
B
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally posted by cram:
The stuff I'm reading from you is so full of inaccuracies.
cram,

If you are referring the my post regarding "high resolution" - I was simply pointing out the difference between high and low resolution for Curve. It was not intended to be a mathematical explanation.


Barry, iZ President
http://www.izcorp.com
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
B
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally posted by blairl:
I'm sorry but this post is full of misconceptions. In a word, you absolutely do not understand digital audio. I don't care what your position is in your company, you just don't understand digital audio. Do yourself a favor and follow the new post just started by Griffinator. It might take a while but will be worth it. The more you post, the less credible you become. I'm sorry to be blunt, but because of the postition you hold in your company, many people will take what you write as authoratative. You write boldly and seem to speak with authority. Please do some research before you post more ideas about digital audio.[/QB]
blairl,

Thanks for the enlightenment.


Barry, iZ President
http://www.izcorp.com
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
B
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant:
....Have faith that the reconstruction filters on your D/A convertors will acuurately reproduce the wave shape, it's amplitude, and correct phase. I suspect Nika will proceed to fill you in on the details of how that works.
Curve,

That would be correct if D/A reconstruction filters in general were perfect but they are not. There are advantages to increasing both the sampling rate AND the bit depth and in lowering the clock jitter. No intention to lecture - please don't take this that way. This is a topic of interest to both of us and we both want to learn.


Barry, iZ President
http://www.izcorp.com
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,938
N
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
N
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally posted by waterboy:
Maybe our ears aren't the only organs called into play when experiencing a musical performance or listening to a record, cd, dvd, or sacd.

Maybe there are other as yet unquantified organic, perceptual, or spiritual(!?) components as well.
I see where you're going. You should read the Oohashi study out of the AES for some more info on this.

I'm not discounting this, but we jump into new territory with this argument, and unfortunately there's very little information out there for this stuff.

Nika.

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,938
N
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
N
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,938
Sota,

Fair enough. You're a busy guy, and this thread certainly isn't going to help your work at all.

As for listening vs. reading. I read, research and experiment in order to explain what I'm hearing. Then I go back and listen again. That's all a part of the process.

Nika.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Quote:
Originally posted by studioman adam:
Digital has it's distortions, too. To play the other side of the field, digital is not this "so beyond perfect" format that we just don't know how to comprend that yet! Digital conversion creates artifacts that can't always be filtered completely. Many of these artifacts can be eliminated by increasing bit depth and sample rate. Of course, other artifacts are introduced and then new filters have to be designed.

adam
I think the point we are careening toward at breakneck speed in the other thread is that, with proper high-res processing (24/48 consistent data stream) in the recording, mixing, and mastering environments, along with high quality dithering and noise shaping at the last stage, the final result (16/44.1) has no audible distortion. Or at least such an infintessimally (sp?) small amount as to be laughable, especially in the face of maximum SNR of 60-80dB on analog reproduction equipment.

And please, don't get me started on dolby noise reduction - DNR adds more artifacts and creates more distortion than digital could possibly aspire to \:\)

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 707
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 707
Very good.

No, Dolby noise reduction wasn't the direction I was pointing. Instead I was trying to realize what tape would sound like if it didn't have that inherent noise floor.

I don't think I could spell infintessimally, either.

Which other thread are you guys careening at breakneck speed in? I must've missed it. But, I see your point with the whole signal path, there. You're most definitely right in that situation.

adam


studioman adam
[][][][][][][][][][][][]
"uh........OK?"
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 493
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 493
Barry, as per our phone conversation, I can see where you were heading with that post. I have no argument about the extended frequency range of analog. I was more concerned with it's relevance to the USABLE frequency range, which seemed to be what we are talking about here. I was also concerned with your post about the "stepping" of digital audio. Now that we have spoken I know where you were headed with that one too. This has been pointed out before, but the written word can convey so much and conversly convey so little. Much can be lost in the translation.

As I dredge my memory for relevant info from my physics classes, we can discuss this further. I'm sure Nika will beat me to it though:D


Tom Cram
dbx Senior Technical Support
(801) 568-7530
tcram@dbxpro.com

non fui, fui, non sum, non curo
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Quote:
Originally posted by studioman adam:
Very good.

No, Dolby noise reduction wasn't the direction I was pointing. Instead I was trying to realize what tape would sound like if it didn't have that inherent noise floor.

I don't think I could spell infintessimally, either.

Which other thread are you guys careening at breakneck speed in? I must've missed it. But, I see your point with the whole signal path, there. You're most definitely right in that situation.

adam
Thread titled "Nika - let's talk about dithering/wordlength"

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
Griffinator wrote:

"I'm beginning to believe more and more that the analog "musical" superiority is, in all likelihood, conditioning..."

Maybe we should organize a blind listening test consisting of a control group of adolescents weaned on MP3's. I'd be really interested to see what their "consensus" would be. Maybe offer a year's supply of Clearasil as an inducement.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
eek.

Just the idea that the future of music appreciation is going to be comprised of people who had no problem listening to 128k compressed audio..

I'm getting indigestion just thinking about it

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 707
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally posted by Griffinator:
Quote:
Originally posted by studioman adam:
Very good.

No, Dolby noise reduction wasn't the direction I was pointing. Instead I was trying to realize what tape would sound like if it didn't have that inherent noise floor.

I don't think I could spell infintessimally, either.

Which other thread are you guys careening at breakneck speed in? I must've missed it. But, I see your point with the whole signal path, there. You're most definitely right in that situation.

adam
Thread titled "Nika - let's talk about dithering/wordlength"
OH. Duh. You wouldn't be talking about that thread titled, "Nika - let's talk about dithering/wordlength," would you?


studioman adam
[][][][][][][][][][][][]
"uh........OK?"
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
I have read all posts from this very interesting thread.

Just did a couple of tests, recorded a 34 khz tone on 2" 30 ips, no problem. Tried if we could hear a 25 khz tone (a musician and me) and we both could sense it, I cannot say whether it was hearing or something else, but we both could sense the feeling when I pushed the button.

Then we recorded an acoustic guitar with an ORTF pair of 20 year old C451's and his voice with a Neumann tube mic which has a capsule from 1947. The board is an analog DDA-AMR and the sound of this recording is extremely nice.

The topic is: are analog mixers sonically better than digital mixers.

I have worked with PT, Nuendo, Logic, Radar, MX2424 and a few more, but my ears tell me I like the sound of a good two inch and a nice analog board most.

Just my 0.002 euro


The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 136
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Griffinator:
eek.

Just the idea that the future of music appreciation is going to be comprised of people who had no problem listening to 128k compressed audio..

I'm getting indigestion just thinking about it
Well, don't forget the previous generation who listened on their cassette tapes on players that topped out at 8khz, and they had no clue what to do with the "Doubley" switch or "CHROME/METAL" switch.


-------------------

New Particle Salad CD released: "The Track Inside"

More info at http://www.particlesalad.com
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,938
N
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
N
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally posted by sign:
I have read all posts from this very interesting thread.

Just did a couple of tests, recorded a 34 khz tone on 2" 30 ips, no problem. Tried if we could hear a 25 khz tone (a musician and me) and we both could sense it, I cannot say whether it was hearing or something else, but we both could sense the feeling when I pushed the button.
Hmm. So you're saying that if I put you in a closed room with a pair of extended frequency headphones on and the lights off and I played a momentary tone at 25kHz through the headphones and asked you to raise your hand when you "sensed it" that you'd be able to? If you try this, would you do me a favor and check the tone on a spectragraph just to make sure that there aren't any artifacts in it below 20kHz?

Thanx!
Nika.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Quote:
Originally posted by psalad:
Well, don't forget the previous generation who listened on their cassette tapes on players that topped out at 8khz, and they had no clue what to do with the "Doubley" switch or "CHROME/METAL" switch.
I was part of that generation (yeah, I'm a young buck - the front end of GenX) - and I always knew when to turn on Dolby NR and when to use the Metal and CrO2 settings...

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:
Quote:
Originally posted by sign:
I have read all posts from this very interesting thread.

Just did a couple of tests, recorded a 34 khz tone on 2" 30 ips, no problem. Tried if we could hear a 25 khz tone (a musician and me) and we both could sense it, I cannot say whether it was hearing or something else, but we both could sense the feeling when I pushed the button.
Hmm. So you're saying that if I put you in a closed room with a pair of extended frequency headphones on and the lights off and I played a momentary tone at 25kHz through the headphones and asked you to raise your hand when you "sensed it" that you'd be able to? If you try this, would you do me a favor and check the tone on a spectragraph just to make sure that there aren't any artifacts in it below 20kHz?

Thanx!
Nika.
Nika, I very much like to find out and will try to get a spectragraph, but having that said, say the tone is a clean 25k, what will the amp or speakers/headphones do with it.

And I will find out if we can 'hear' it with a Sennheiser HD600.


The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:
Quote:
Originally posted by sign:
I have read all posts from this very interesting thread.

Just did a couple of tests, recorded a 34 khz tone on 2" 30 ips, no problem. Tried if we could hear a 25 khz tone (a musician and me) and we both could sense it, I cannot say whether it was hearing or something else, but we both could sense the feeling when I pushed the button.
Hmm. So you're saying that if I put you in a closed room with a pair of extended frequency headphones on and the lights off and I played a momentary tone at 25kHz through the headphones and asked you to raise your hand when you "sensed it" that you'd be able to? If you try this, would you do me a favor and check the tone on a spectragraph just to make sure that there aren't any artifacts in it below 20kHz?

Thanx!
Nika.
I don't know. I do know that in 1998 I was administered a physical by a prospective company and that I was able to, on their standardized hearing tests, hear pitch amplitudes as low as -160dB (seriously - these were the results they showed me)

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
" posted 04-12-2002 01:37 PM                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe our ears aren't the only organs called into play when experiencing a musical performance or listening to a record, cd, dvd, or sacd.
Maybe there are other as yet unquantified organic, perceptual, or spiritual(!?) components as well. "

Not to address the spiritual, (sighs of relief all around) but that big organ we live inside of, the skin, is extremely sensitive to vibrations faster and slower than our ears can hear.
One prominent classical musician, who rightly would prefer to be known for other things, can hear with their ears only in the most marginal sense. They get through the global concert tours performing at an incredible level going off what they feel with their skin.
We can feel the vibrations in the hearing range too, but our ears are so much more sensitive in this range that we scarcely notice.

Everyone has surely felt some bass in their time. I'm sure we can feel the ultrahigh stuff too. I think personally I'm more attached to the sub sub bass stuff, but a trumpet with a harmon mute or a cymbal is putting out all the way up to 100khz at least, and a quality of brilliance that only partway captures to digital may well have some tactile components.

I think the other crucial question is, as Nika has raised before, how much are we willing to pay for these sub and super hearing frequencies to be reproduced?
This probably should be something to address after all other aspects of reproduction, when we miraculously find some cash we didn't know we had...
Maybe it will be cheap enough to mess around with some year soon.
Ted


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
-160dB SPL? That has to be one of the most astounding things I've read around here. Maybe it was 90 SPL -160dB = -70dB SPL--still astounding since 0 dB SPL is about the lowest sound what a normal, healthy, child can hear. 70dB below that, and well...I'm incredulous.

Do you recall the acutal dB unit?

-Dennis

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Considering that the average SPL of most headphones is around 110dB, I guess that would put it at -50dB

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 481
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:
Can you give us a little more information to quantify what you define as "good" in each category and then explain which specific consoles you've worked with to form this opinion and in what circumstances?
This opinion was formed over many years of listening to both. By "good" I meant pro-quality pro-capable digital and analog consoles. These could be 5k to 500k but obviously you wouldn't compare a 5k digital to a 500k analog or vice-versa. I think a 10k analog console would sound warmer than my d8b just simply passing, say, a nice fat analog string patch. Of course we don't judge music mixes just by listening to individual unprocessed signals do we?

Just in general I think analog consoles sound warmer than digital consoles. Just my opinion. With that and 34 cents you can buy a postage stamp. In this context "warmer" means the type of sound that we've been used to hearing for the last many years. You can get there with digital, but with a "good" quality analog board (Ghost for example?) it's often there "out of the box". By the time the music reaches the mixdown recorder (at least for me) it's never an issue because I've injected that warmth into my music. Hence the great proliferation of tube gear.

Hope that helps.

Lawrence

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 481
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally posted by LawrenceF:
[QUOTE][qb]Originally posted by Nika:
Can you give us a little more information to quantify what you define as "good" in each category and then explain which specific consoles you've worked with ...
Oops... I forgot to mention some consoles.

d8b, trained on an SSL analog(forgot the model...circa 1990, brand new), Sountracs Project 8, 02R, Ramsa analog, Mackie 8 buss and a few others along the way.

BTW, the SSL I trained on in still in use at RID (Recording Institute of Detroit) and at the time cost about $350,000+ I think. The S/N ratio is about 60db which is laughable by today's digital copnsole standards. My d8b's automation is light years ahead of that particular SSL. So what? It still turns out great recordings.

Actually I think that somewhat higher noise floor on the analog consoles contributes to that elusive thing we like to call warmth. Hmmm...moving to a new post on the thread.

Lawrence

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,695
Original Forumite
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
Original Forumite
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,695
Perhaps I shouldn't be registering an opinion without having read all of the previous pages, but I feel like putting in my two cents. Sorry if it's redundant.

Unless one includes mixing inside a DAW as working with a digital mixer, I am unqualified to say how good digital mixers are in general. At the same time, I have worked with plenty of SSL and Neve desks, as well as with Mackie level budget analog boards.

However, I have one compelling reason to habitually purchase analog boards for personal use. There is no need to upgrade an analog board every time the ante is raised in the digital bit depth and sample rate rat race.

I will point out that I'd be happy to hand off a project to a good mix engineer who swears by his Oxford console. I'm not anti-digital. It's just that I plan to wait for some time before I personally buy a digital mixing board.


Enthusiasm powers the world.

Craig Anderton's Archiving Article
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Quote:
Originally posted by soapbox:
Perhaps I shouldn't be registering an opinion without having read all of the previous pages, but I feel like putting in my two cents. Sorry if it's redundant.

Unless one includes mixing inside a DAW as working with a digital mixer, I am unqualified to say how good digital mixers are in general. At the same time, I have worked with plenty of SSL and Neve desks, as well as with Mackie level budget analog boards.

However, I have one compelling reason to habitually purchase analog boards for personal use. There is no need to upgrade an analog board every time the ante is raised in the digital bit depth and sample rate rat race.

I will point out that I'd be happy to hand off a project to a good mix engineer who swears by his Oxford console. I'm not anti-digital. It's just that I plan to wait for some time before I personally buy a digital mixing board.
No redundancy, but you should probably read the previous pages (and the 96Khz thread, and several other threads where we've been basically establishing the idea that higher word length and higher sample rate have a critical mass at 24/48, and there's no point in buying anything higher than that)

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,695
Original Forumite
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
Original Forumite
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,695
Thanks Scott. I have browsed through the 96 kHz thread. While the arguments you are alluding to make sense in theory, I must reserve my judgement in this area until I have obtained more personal experience.

Of course, the needs of my clients must be factored in as well. If there's a demand (irrational or otherwise) for 48 bit/192 kHz for example, I may decide to voice my opinions but offer service at that resolution anyway.

Anyway, my points are off-topic because they have more to do with practical reasons for going analog rather than sonic ones. YMMV. Thanks for allowing me to nudge this thread in a different direction for a few lines! \:\)


Enthusiasm powers the world.

Craig Anderton's Archiving Article
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 260
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 260
Hey all,

First off the bat, I have to say I have not much experience with high end digital consoles, only the "toys" like the O1V, O3D, and sometimes the O2R... great functionality, but this is where the buzzword "cold, clinical & sterile" descriptions for digital come from, same with the "stock" I/O interfaces for ProTools... I can honestly say I have never mixed or even been in the room for a mix on an Oxford and the like... so I am not even gonna start giving comparisons to what I know, like Neve, SSL, Soundcraft, Mackie...

In fact, I'll be bold and say none of you are in a position to compare unless you have an analogue AND digital setup in your own room, that you can record the same players on the two then compare. Anyone ever done this? Have say, 16 sends of a band playing, send them to both an analogue & digital multitrack, and then A/B the two multitracks playing back, all gain matched? Then I could seriously consider your arguement. (Whoops - I realised that we're talking mixing not recording, but same deal - have your MT of choice feeding both a Neve and an Oxford, all with EQ and Dynamics bypassed... you get the idea.)

It's well known analogue is far from linear, and I find the more I get into this recording/mixing thang, that non-linear is what works. On paper digital is the most "true" medium, but for the music I record, you want a few lies in there...

One of the most eye opening things I have learnt about analogue is just how far from the truth it really can be! FYI, check out this awesome site by one of my engineering heroes, Jack Endino. Yeah, the guy that recorded the 1st Nirvana album, but he has done some other great stuff too - I always thought he would be the ultimate supporter of analogue, which he does use, but he has no illusions about it - he has posted a collection of common multitracks Frequency response curves... eye opening stuff. He also has some valid points about how we should bias our machines a little differently than the way we we're taught.. http://www.endino.com/graphs/index.html

I would love the automation, flexibilty and recall of a digital desk, but it has to be a damn good digital desk. I can make a Mackie work on just about anything.


Adam B - Owner & Head Engineer
SMOKIN & JOKIN RECORDING STUDIO
Sydney Australia
http://www.angelfire.com/music/smokinjokin
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
". . . but you should probably read the previous pages (and the 96Khz thread, and several other threads where we've been basically establishing the idea that higher word length and higher sample rate have a critical mass at 24/48, and there's no point in buying anything higher than that)"

Oh you gotta love these forums. Just think - about 1 to 10 people have independently disproved about 2 million+ musicians, producers, the entire audio engineering society, countless others in the music industry, dogs & all the woman in the world (reference to great hearing - not a slur against women, or dogs for that matter). That's right - this one month in the year 2002 on a GM forum. Damn - and to think that I was there!

And now all those other 1,999,990-ish more people are just gonna have go on being foolish enough to imagine they're hearing something better than 24/48. If they just would have only stopped by the Musicplayer forums in April 2002, it would have stopped the foolish qwest & feeling that there might be better sound & resolution of this gloriously, already perfect, medium that, as we now know, can get no better than 24/48.

And especially those niave enough to think they already "have" heard something better. My God! I'm so happy this place is here. It's where it's all being sorted out. Kinda cool - isn't it? :rolleyes:

And to think that I actually participated in this thread. I feel kinda un-clean now. \:o
Well while I'm at it, maybe I'll go do something else dirty. I know - I'll go work with something that's been touched by . . . analog.
(no disrespect towards anyone that has tryed to inject some sanity into this thread)

Boy, just thank the internet that we're all incognito here.

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally posted by soapbox:
[...]
However, I have one compelling reason to habitually purchase analog boards for personal use. There is no need to upgrade an analog board every time the ante is raised in the digital bit depth and sample rate rat race.[...]
I would agree that this is a compelling point. And often missed. The edge of the digital envelope is extremely sharp; that of analog by comparison extremely broad and vague. Now this
is a valid criticism.

George


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  gm 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5