lovely and true comments, just one final thing is that if we used PC's like we used to do with analogue front ends then perhaps we are very close to studios and perhaps even better, the days of Sadie stations being absolute are done and have been for a while
lokks
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Brian Treml <britre123@gmail.com> wrote:
If I recall my history right, the Akai GX 630 was indeed puported to
have a better sound than the Teac but also had issues later in life
with poor solder connections on the solonoid boards which would cause
the play button to stop working and lights to go on and off? The Akai
also was a bit better due to it's toleration of overload on the
signal. You could nail it in the red with little or no distortion
unless thats what you were looking for. Back in the day that was the
nice thing that we had home equipment which equaled or exceeded the
equipment used in the studios to make the stuff we were listening to.
It had to be good! Now it is quite the opposite as a iPod can not
equal the sound a studio can produce if indeed the engineer and
producer listen to the mix at all....
Interesting converstation on digital audio. What stands out to me is
this was assumed to be a perfect world with perfect audio reproduction
and in fact advertised as "hear what the producer heard in the
studio". Indeed this is not the case. The reproduction is so
complicated and conveluted, and as pointed out most of us do not even
have the proper gear to hear what it really is supposed to sound like,
it seems the digital format is not an audiophile world and explains
why with the exception of noise and artifact, analog vinyl or open
reel tape sounds so much better.
On Nov 25, 5:11 am, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Never had the 3340 but instead got an Akai GX630 DSS which is very similar
> but purported to be better sounding. I do believe AoQ has the same one for
> playing the Q4's that we cherish, so you should know the sound.
> As for the DSD being better - unless you have a DSD DAC which most of us
> don't - you won't hear true DSD only an approximation of it. My own Denon I
> think really enhances DSD but appears to leave PCM as is.
>
> Moving on there is a clear audible difference between the SACD and BD on
> the #5.1. Some of this may be down to levels and the audible affect when
> comparing. The PCM does sound heavier on the bass, I've not done enough
> A/B'ing to say more but the DSD appears to enhance certain sounds but also
> has the "Hotel California" veil (compare SACD to DVD-A).
>
> The question is how much of the article is absolute and how much is BS.
> Surely if the mixdown of the#5.1 would have been done in PCM (as no one
> uses DSD at this stage) then the first master would be PCM?
>
> Now what is alluded to in the article is that the stereo version was DSD
> and I can relate to that as at the time of the first SACD remaster (which
> this is) it was in the period of the big push on DSD, which we now know to
> have been a poor decision.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
No comments:
Post a Comment