Your point on hd down load has merit, however, you obviously have little experience with analog. My suggestion is that you do some deep research before panning analog and the benefits of using his rez encoding for mixing and mastering.
This is topic that is as old as tubes vs solid state and there is tons of reading and listening out there for you to do.
Your focus on the vender is better served than rehashing whether analog is a hi rez medium. |
Dvd audio had the ability to go as high as 24/192 but rare were the recordings that met that watermark. Most were 24/48 or 96.
Also, have you ever looked at the actual wav. on those discs? I have and it ain't pretty. Most have hard compression and extreme listing on them....that would include Dire Straits, Paul Simon, Steely Dan and Talking Heads to name a few. What it is on or how it is encoded means nothing if the engineering or mastering butchered it.
But as a recording engineer I agree that when done properly digital can be great. Without digital I would not be doing what I do. |
that is suppose to be limiting not listing. |
Dolby SR is in the 90-95db ratio of signal to noise. I think you are looking at Dolby B systems of the 80's Analog noise reduction has come a long, long way since then. Try listening to Circus Monkey from Walter Becker. This was recorded totally in analog using Dolby SR. I doubt you will be troubled by any noise floor. Too bad that you can only get Becker's album on CD. It would be great to have an AAA copy.
I'm not bashing digital at all. As I said, if it weren't for digital I would not have the business I have today. Last night I had a job, which was a multi-track live record of Hot Tuna. I just couldn't afford the cost if I ran analog, nor would I be able to easily set up and tear down equipment or mix it within the time frame that my customers need. With digital it is wham, bam thank you! And, yes, the results can be fantastic......but I dream and drool over the thoughts of a SOTA multi-track analog rig. But that turns into a lot of money and a lot more work and time.
So, beyond the digital vs analog issue....to my ears transfering well recorded analog to high rez digital is worth it. But I wouldn't let go of the analog master cause digital can not capture everything that analog can.
BTW, where in the world did your friend get those analog masters? Was he a big time studio engineer that had access to these masters? Those are some big name artists that he worked with. Very impressive. I'm envious!!!!! |
BTW, it is pretty easy to see whether HD is using CD and upsampling. Just look at frequency graph. Filters and brick wall filters tell all.
And if they are...well it is consumer fraud and a class action needs to happen. |
Tim,
You ran with a tough crowd back in the day.
Hifi News and Review's music section has does a frequency and spectrum graph of digital down loads, which can be useful. I don't do too many down loads, although that may change. When I do it is straight from the artist and they are true transfers.
Again, try Circus Monkey. Not only is it a good recording....although a bit overly compressed with some limiting but the music is great. It will be something you will listen to repeatedly.
Also, Jerry Garcia from the Capitol Theater in 1981. It is an 88/24 transfer of a multi-tracked live show. The only limitations are the mics that were used. You don't have to be a Dead Head to appreciate this recording or music. After listening to that, you will agree that you are glad it was transfered to hi-rez digital. Also, there is little to no limiting and most likely little compression on individual tracks during the mix. The wav looks fantastic and the way every mastered 2 track should appear.
You can get it at Jerry Garcia's web site.
I think we agree on hirez digital being very good. It's not a dog vs cat or chocolate vs vanilla thing......you can like both! |
Hi Rez is a marketing term and has no real meaning. IMHO, it only implies a recreation of music that approaches the sound of real instruments in real space. Which is a moving target dependent on a number of variables, e.g., software and hardware related to SOTA and time. What maybe hi rez today may be far from it tomorrow as technology marches on.
It is not tied to only the digital domain. In the future, digital maybe a relic of the past, surpassed by some new storage medium, which approaches "real" to a much more accurate degree. Yes dynamic range is, too a large degree, very important, however, there is more going on in there than that.
That being said, analog still has qualities that allows it to be perceived in a way that, in some case, approaches "real" in a more honest fashion than digital does. Something that is not measured by ones and zeros.
I know this is slightly off topic but important none the less. |
Noble 100,
The thing that gets me is that most of the posts have concurred that digital done right can sound very good. However, once some says analog can sound very good and has qualities that in someways surpass digital you get all upset and begin rehashing a 30 year old debate, with what seems to be a passionate agenda to bash analog.
Your last post was extremely hostile and adds nothing to the conversation. I would suspect that if you could, upon review, you would hit the delete button.
Now back to your original question, people will pay for the highest resolution in the digital domain to analog tape because it sounds better than the bandwidth limited 44/16. Why it sounds better has been discuss over and over and over again with lots of reasons given. Do a google search and you can read for weeks.
However, one reason, which I think you might conclude is valid, is that brick wall filters create issues and once you move them further up in the audio spectrum they are less of an issue, thus allowing for further enjoyment.
Peace to all who listen!
|
After reviewing this thread, I think you have a valid point; I now understand that claims that analog is hi-res and has infinite resolution does seem to get my panties in a bunch.
I honestly believe that analog can sound very good and I should not be so concerned that some consider it hi-res and allows infinite resolution. I also really do believe that all of us should listen to music on whatever format we like.
In my defense, I am somewhat passionate about music, its high quality recording and its realistic reproduction. I'm very interested in new emerging music reproduction technologies and think I do get frustrated when I encounter comments I think are wrong and just confuse the subject of hi-res music reproduction. I apologize to all for my small rants and will try to refrain in the future.
However, I think you're wrong that my reply to Geoffkait was hostile. I'll admit it added little to the conversation but know I didn't write it with hostile intentions. My intention was to be sarcastically funny while still conveying my point. I thought I was successful but now I'm not so sure.
A toast to enjoying our music however we choose to do it,
Tim
Tim,
Nicely put and thanks for your reconsideration, correction and input. I'm impressed!
Ray |
Tim,
I'm a recording engineer and have been working in the digital domain since 1989. direct to digital....as you put it. Even back then digital was very good, if implemented properly. I have averaged around 35 projects a year over that time, so I feel I have a bit of experience from which to speak. There are a lot of great tools to use which can provide some really great results....and there are some software plugins, etc...that help with taking some hardness off digital, however, I have yet to hear and digital tool that can recreate the 3 dimensional space of a live performance the way analog can. Once digital can do that, it may, in my book, surpass analog. However, today there is just more rightness with analog....more tactile, organic flow that digital has yet to achieve and that, to me, allows the best analog to trump the best digital.
I think it is great that you are enjoying the best of what digital can do....I know I do, but the best analog goes a bit further. The problem us that there are a lot of bad analog recordings out there, just as there are a lot of bad digital ones. Neither one's SOTA should be judge by those lemons.
I think you would be surprised at what dolbs SR can do in a shoot out. Even you might reevaluate your stance.
Btw, have you heard a direct to disk recording....no tape.....just direct to disc? IMO, that done at 45rpm might actually be the best resolution going. |
|
I've been recording in high rez digital since 2004 or so. Started 24/96 multi-track in 2005. It is nice, real nice. It is extremely flexible and inexpensive compared to analog. It makes an engineer's job much easier. Am I blown away by it? No, I'm not. Am I in love with it? Yes, I am. Dolby SR, now that maybe something I'm blown away by. But it is not practical for me.
I just mixed and finished three projects over the past ewo weeks, Hot Tuna and two jazz project by John Stetch, a very nice jazz pianist. I also have a new DVD Blue Ray release by Charlie Bertini of his last festival concert, as well as a duet with Charlie and Terry Meyers. My point is, these are nice recordings, you can listen to them and they provide a lot of what hi-rez digital can provide and give you a base line of from which I come.....however, as nice as these are I still prefer analog. And these are on;y my recent projects I have thousand of hours of hi rez digital projects with 10 of thousand of hours of mixing and mastering time.
That is not to say that you are not right for your ears....my ears just tell me differently. So, on that note we can agree to disagree. |
Why doesn't this forum allow you to edit. Here are all my typos forever out there for all to scorn and laugh at.
Enjoy! |
(Digital is created by turning the analog recording into ones and zeros.)
I think you mean analog signal not recording.
(Maybe they are measuring the wrong thing??!)
Or we may not know what it is that needs to be measured. |
My system is nothing special but carefully crafted and modified to my taste and within my budget. I'm not even sure if what is listed is current....but most anyone could assemble this system or a better one. However, the quality of one's system does not give one ears, nor does money spent.
The storage medium is often less of a concern than the engineering of the recording, mixing and mastering. It doesn't matter what it is stored on if the first is bad. When you get this right and couple it with great music then both mediums are great. You can put together a great budget analog as well as digital system and enjoy them both.
Average is very good....you get to choose based on your mechanical and musical values. You can have both. It really isn't an either or situation. Drink from both wells and enjoy! |
no offense taken and u believe we are in agreement. |
