Unsound. I hope you are right. How nice it would be to sit with a remote control and choose the song you want, enjoying the same quality of sound provided by state of the art analog.
I suspect it is possible. I have had the pleasure of listening to master digital tape at the home of Andrew Litton. He is a member of my music listening group, and won a music Grammy for his work. He is truly a creative genius.
( Walton: Belshazzar's Feast / Andrew Litton, conductor; Neville Creed, David Hill, chorus masters ).
The master takes from the live performances of the Dallas symphony is the only digital source I have heard that is equal to analog. Perhaps it's because it's a first generation tape, not mixed or re sampled, and because it is yet untouched by the record producers.
When the finished product is finally released, (compact disc) and played side by side with that master, it is an absolute joke. Truly a point of frustration for Andrew as well as myself.
http://www.dallassymphony.com/index.php
If the companies that produce and release the software shared Andrews passion, perhaps we could overcome these obstacles. I doubt that the cost (relative to all the expenses involved) would amount to a miniscule of the budget.
I think you would be stunned by the results of playing near perfect software in our present music systems. Bigger than many tweaks costing thousands of dollars. I feel cheated every time I think about it. |
Albertporter, I don't know whether I'm delighted or dismayed. I value your judgement, as I appreciate your commitment. Your experience with quality digital reads as being more satisfying than I have experienced. But, the fact that it can't seem to work it's way into our lives is utterly frustrating. That you, having made serious comparisons heard and recognized that quailty digital can and does exist (despite it's dearth) is at the very least promising. Thank you for sharing and good listening. |
Albert: A very revealing anecdote about the Walton tape. Many audiophiles want to blame the technology for the quality of the software we can buy. But too often it's the mastering work that gets in the way. I'd bet the human element would have done just as much damage in the analogue age, however. |
Albert,
I agree with you on the mastering issue. I have some JVC "xrcd" 20 bit K2 cds that sound great. Why can't this software format be the standard for the mastering engineers to follow and make us 2-channel lovers happy?
My cd collection is about 2,500 and there are many cds that were on labels that are no longer in business. The possibilty of those Artist cds coming out from another label in the DVD-A or SACD format is nil.
What were they thinking??
|
Albert,
I agree with you on the mastering issue. I have some JVC "xrcd" 20 bit K2 cds that sound great. Why can't this software format be the standard for the mastering engineers to follow and make us 2-channel lovers happy?
My cd collection is about 2,500 and there are many cds that were on labels that are no longer in business. The possibilty of those Artist cds coming out from another label in the DVD-A or SACD format is nil.
What were they thinking??
|
Lngbruno: XRCD is not a "format," it's just a marketing term for a very good mastering process involving a little bit of technology and a lot of care. Given that there are few audiophiles out there, it would never pay the majors to spend the extra time/money to do better mastering. So you'll just have to enjoy XRCDs when you can find them.
As for your other concern, even if a label has gone under, somebody owns that music. Rest assured, if they decide there's a market for it on a new format, they'll bring it out. (But don't expect SACD or DVD-A to solve the mastering problem.) |
A mastering Question:
How is it managed to transfer larger number of digital samples to the smaller number of digital samples to meet red-book CD standard?
Let's have the case that we have two recorded samples together that need to be one sample on the CD with one amplitude that has a value of 2 bits and another amplitude has a value of 20 bits?
There are only three answers:
1. Have one sample with 2 bits amplitude
2. Have one sample with 20 bits amplitude
3. Have one sample with 11 bits amplitude(average)
In all three cases we implement a huge error transfering these samples by either loosing too much information or adding distortions and colourations.
Wouldn't that be easier to transfer it to analogue prior to mastering? |
Marakanetz, your description is most likely what I heard when comparing the master digital tape against the (lower bit) Compact Disc.
By the way, the tape was only a Sony DAT plugged into the master board so Andrew would have a personal copy. I imagine the "true" mater tape from the big mastering deck was better quality still.
Obviously I agree with you that a master digital to LP is superior than converting to lower bit to accommodate CD format.
I have a good many examples of digital masters as a source in my ECM Jazz collection. Comparison between the CD and LP of the same performance prove the LP superior in every case. |
Albert, I agree with you on digital vinyls. I personally possess 80% of ECM (vinyl)catalogue along with WATT. I luve these masterings and so CDs aren't bad as well. |
Great for us to evolve into a discussion of ECM and thinking about the music again. I have about 70 Watt and ECM records, and maybe only 15 CD's of same. |
Just as an aside, it's a common practice in the pop/rock production world to mix digitally (ProTools), but to then generate a final 2 channel mix on analog tape (1/2 inch). This is then delivered to the mastering studio where it is converted back to a digital format. People comment that the analog tape gives the music a greater cohesiveness than if left in the original digital format.
Also, it's not uncommon that once a master "tape" has left the mastering studio that the sound is degraded in the duplication factories.
Getting high quality sound mass produced is not a trivial task. |
Onhwy61, There is a logical conclusion that you cannot get away from analogue unless you're mastering directly to the neccessary format wheather it's CD or SACD with bit-to-bit sample-to-sample correspondence.
Why would we realy need to record digitally on the first place if we still have to mix it into the analogue in the most cases? Isn't it more expences and time involved there? |
Marakanetz, the recording companies record to digital "multitrack" in order to do their editing. While the sound quality may not be up to analog, the editing capability of digital is much more versatile. This gives cleaner edits and other manipulations of the recording. Also, time coding of each track can be more precise when locking up the tracks. Other advantages as well. |
Marakanetz, big name pop/rock acts with corresponding big recording budgets and recording in a world class studio(s) will typically track using 2" 24 track analog tape (two machines can be synced if more tracks are required). It will then be ported over to a digital format for manipulation and mixing. Effects and processors used can either be analog or digital. The final mix is via analog large format console mixer to 1/2" analog tape. The mastering studio will provide the finishing touches, nearly always analog processors, and then transfer the music into a computer running software to compile it as a redbook CD.
The reason for such a convoluted recording process is a combination of sound quality, comfort level and convenience. For the tracking sessions most people think 2" analog tape sounds better than any other format. It is also a world wide accepted standard that engineers are comfortable handling. Digital mixing affords far greater flexibility than possible with a purely analog signal path. It also avoids the generational losses associated with analog tape based mixing. (Even if you stayed analog, you would never mix with the original recordings, you would use dubs.) Typical manipulation at this stage might be producing a single composite vocal track from a dozen individual tracks. Or maybe replacing the kick drum sound with a pre-recorded kick drum sample. The vocal comp can be done, if somewhat messily, on analog tape with a razor and tape. The kick drum replacement can only be accomplished in the digital domain. The final two channel mix is done to analog tape because it sounds better than way. The mastering stage continues the analog sound processes because of its sonic superiority. The most common mastering processes are volume changes, EQ and compression. While there are perfectly good digital devices that accomplish these processes, the general consensus is that the best sounding outboard devices are all analog based.
Modern pop/rock recording is conceptually similar to making a commericial Hollywood movie. No director is making a faithful reproduction of real events, the documentary approach, but instead everything is fake and any level of artifice is employed to make it "better than real". |
Onhwy61, it is refreshing to read a post that is factual and informative. I am good friends with Russ Burger of RBDG. He is frequently featured in Spin magazine and is responsible for the design of several fine recording studios.
Our conversations have covered much of what you have posted, in addition I've sat in with him during recording sessions in his own place.
A valuable insight to the workings of producing the end product we wind up with. |
I bought my first SACD player (Sony 333) recently and have acquired about 10 SACD's. I have about 500 redbook CD's. The SACD's sound great...imho...about %40 better than redbook. So, I will enjoy what I can get out of SACD, and keep upgrading my CD player to get the most out of my rebooks. If SACD eventually goes belly up.....I don't much care........It will not change the fact that the SACD's I own sound really good and I should be able to enjoy them even if the format dies.
I do think that the current battle over formats sucks, since there are obvioulsy improvements to be made to the CD.....but my inexpensive investment in a SACD player has been worth it, even if in the end I end up with only 20-30 outstanding sounding new pieces of music. I agree with those whose say, in the end, it is all about enjoying the music. |
Pardales, what CD player or combo do you or did you have before?
I've listened to Gamut CD1 with red-book CDs and I've never heard anything sound even close for the price range offered. |
For redbook's I had an Anthem CD-1 (as transport) feeding the Perpetual Technologies combination. However, I no longer have that set, and am in the process of considering/auditioning new/used single box players in the 3K range. I am seriously considering the Cary 306/200, and a few other players in that range. I do not have access to the GamuT but am looking into it a bit. Maybe you could email me more about the GamuT (off the thread). Thanks, |
You may want to also look at the new Ayre player in that price range. Good choices abound. |
