|
|
|
DSD said:
Au contraire! How do you explain the "warmer" and more accurate midrange of both analog and DSD recordings?
lack of time-instability issues inherent in PCM recording systems?
|
|
|
Post by zinkear  December 3, 2009 (22 of 183)
|
|
DSD said:
Au contraire! How do you explain the "warmer" and more accurate midrange of both analog and DSD recordings?
Lack of higher frequences and more harmonic distortion (in analog tapes), perhaps? Tape hiss in the backround gives artificial "ambience". Why do you think all major labels swithced to digital recording in the late seventies even before CDs or any kind of digital delivery were invented? Even if the recorders were Sony shoeboxes running at 14 or 16 bits at 48 kHz and connected to U-matic video decks for storage. Ease of editing? No. Future proof? No. Better quality than those huge Studer, Revox and Otari tape machines with state-of-the-art Dolby noise reductions provided? YES. Ask Tony Faulkner. Those words "Master Tape" sound so romantic, as romantic as those magnificent recorders look. The sad fact is that any 16/48 $300 digital pocket recorder is better in sound quality. It just does not sell.
|
|
|
Post by zinkear December 3, 2009 (23 of 183)
|
|
audioholik said:
lack of time-instability issues inherent in PCM recording systems?
When was the last time you compared the wow and flutter or timedrift figures of an analog tape recorder and a digital PCM recorder? Never compared them? That's because digital recorders do not have those faults and the figures can not be given. Get real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zinkear said:
Why do you think all major labels swithced to digital recording in the late seventies even before CDs or any kind of digital delivery were invented?
cheaper technology? easier storage?
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox December 3, 2009 (25 of 183)
|
|
zinkear said:
Have you people any idea what the original tapes are for these releases mentioned here, not only Solti? Karajan died in -89, digitals were made at 16/48 at most then. Many older recordings are analog tapes, which just might have a dash of frequences past 20 kHz, but the dynamic range is 70 dB equal to 11 bits resolution at best with comparativelly huge amounts of tape hiss compared to even a CD! Solti is on ancient analog tapes, the total data content of which can easily copied on a RBCD (this is a no-brainer to everybody) unless you absolutelly want the ultrasonic tape hiss components, too. Besides no mics captured any ultrasonics in those days, even the famous Neumanns used in Decca tree fall off at 18 kHz. So please enlighten me what is the idea behind reissuing them on SACD unless they have some secret multichannel tapes hidden somewhere? Or really you need not tell what the idea is when you look at the pricing.
These recordings were made by Decca between 1959 and 1966 so they are very much pre-digital; I believe were full frequency sound recordings that Decca introduced with higher frequencies capabilities. They were well thought of at the time and I still have some in my never played archive collection of vinyl.
You ask "Why on SACD?" Don't you really know after all that goes on on this forum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
zinkear said:
The sad fact is that any 16/48 $300 digital pocket recorder is better in sound quality.
You really should take your 16/48 PCM recordings (made on digital pocket recorder) and compare them with the below SACD Falla: The Three Cornered Hat - Ansermet (sourced from the "ancient tape").
|
|
|
Post by zinkear December 3, 2009 (27 of 183)
|
|
audioholik said:
You really should take your 16/48 PCM recordings (made on digital pocket recorder) and compare them with the below SACD Falla: The Three Cornered Hat - Ansermet (sourced from the "ancient tape").
Just gimme the tapes and a matching tape deck!
|
|
|
Post by zinkear December 3, 2009 (28 of 183)
|
|
audioholik said:
cheaper technology? easier storage?
Marginally cheaper maybe, but lost ability to multitrack. Still they chose digital shoeboxes with unreversable mixdown. Easier storage, hmmm, do you not remember the size of U-matic tapes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
hiredfox said:
You ask "Why on SACD?" Don't you really know after all that goes on on this forum?
why on SACD? why DSD? isn't 44kHz enough? I have no idea why such people have been logging to the site... lately. It's all strangely correlated with the BIS situation.
|
|
|
Post by Petrus December 3, 2009 (30 of 183)
|
|
audioholik said:
You really should take your 16/48 PCM recordings (made on digital pocket recorder) and compare them with the below SACD Falla: The Three Cornered Hat - Ansermet (sourced from the "ancient tape").
Maybe not a 300 dollar recorder, but 500 dollar ones do better all DAT machines, which replaced the Sony PCM-F series PCM adaptors connected to video tape transports, U-matic or Betamax, in late eighties. Those units were used for example when recording the Dutoit/Montreal series for Decca, those records all got A or A+ sonic rating form Gramophone. I still have many of those.
If my logic works, the recording companies moved on to better tecnology (and disk reviewers agreed), from Revox/Studer 15ips tapes to Sony PCM adaptors (the first Sony PCM100 was 14 bit), to DAT, then to hard disk recorders we have now, because they found it better than analog and each step was an improvement. Even before digital delivery was available, which is important to notice.
If Decca and other engineers preferred "primitive" digital processors to mature analog tape machines, why do present day amateurs with absolutelly no first hand experience with those venerable 200 kg monsters think that tape is more accurate medium? If 14/44 Sony replaced a Studer because Decca engineers found it better, why would we now need 24/96, 24/192 or DSD to copy those tapes? Worse and smaller quality should fit inside a better and bigger envelope, in this case RBCD. On the other hand, if money is to be made...
|
|
