Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Audio' started by RedRedBlockhead, Apr 9, 2008.
Very very interesting.
As someone that swears by the difference in quality of recording and mixing at 96k instead of doing the same process fully at 44.1, I hope they do continue this research.
What I'd like to know from that experiment, and they don't mention it, is whether the recordings on the regular CDs they listened to were originally of 96k quality before being dithered down to 44.1k for CD, or whether everything was done at the rate.
It mentions that the DVD-As and super ACDs sounded better than the regular CDs, where one possible explanation was that the engineers had more freedom, without the worry of the end product being used on a cheap system. I think this is wrong. Can they not theorize on the simple fact that instruments recorded at a higher rez were of better sonic quality to start with and that the clarity and therefore understanding of the delays, reverb, eq, etc placed on those sounds helped the engineers when it came to the mix process (not to mention the lower gain level they will have used during the recording process)?
Hope to see more experiments like this, particularly with more control over the entire recording, mixing, and maybe even printing process.
I think the article says they were down converting hi res to cd in realtime.
As far as I'm aware, recording at 96k sounds better on most of our gear because it was designed to record at that res. Also they make an interesting point on spacial information perhaps being better at 96k. I think it would be impossible to argue against 24 bit in the recording process though.
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. Good find! I have to say, though, that it doesn't bother me at this point that the hi-res recordings are being "bottlenecked" into the lower-res CD format. VERY few people have equipment that could produce the high-res sound with enough clarity and level of preciseness that they could ever even know it was a high-res recording. It is also refreshing that they still record in these formats because it means tha when the listening technology becomes more mss-produced we will have great quality recordings to listen to.
Cheers. Yes I'd agree that most people don't have the equipment to appreciate any of the supposed benefits hi res but I'd take it a step further and say that most people don't have the equipment to properly appreciate CD quality. Furthermore considering the recent and continuing amalgamation of different media despite the proliferation of different genres of playback devices -
1) Home/Car stereo with wallowy 'bass at 100'
2) Mp3 conversion and ibud listening w/ total L + R separation
3) 2 Inch throwaway radio
4) Mono television speaker
5) Home theatre
6) Audiophile systems
7) Cinema usage
8) 64K compression on browser embedded players
The advantage of hi res recordings is that they are specifically mixed with the intention of being played on an accurate system. Furthermore SACD has an RMS volume limit established well below its actual peak preventing volume pumping.
Cheers right back to you sir. I have to make the comment that it sickens me that people use such abysmal equipment for listening. People with an appreciation for sound quality are few and far between these days. It has become such a pandemic that many producers/engineers of music compress all of their music and get rid of the dynamics so that it will soubd better equipment such as the iBud or other sub-par quality speaker/headphone. I have to say, though, that the iBuds are one of the better standard issue earbud headphones out there, which still does not say much.
It's a double edged deal. More listening devices also means more listeners! Who knows, when I've finished college I may even get a job working the medium I love.
And we can complain all we like but I'm not getting on the tube wearing my HD600s!