Well the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
There is quite a bit of evidence that people can't hear the difference between input and output of properly designed cheap modern converters.
This is not the case with even the best vinyl or tape.
I'd like to talk specifics - so highlight one. In particular I'm concerned about your claim of 'properly designed'. Does a falsifiable test for this exist?
You can design equipment to have no audible distortions and you can design equipment to have audible distortions. 'Properly designed' equipment according to me goes into the first, but you may turn the 2 around if you want.
The link I posted has more than enough info there for both versions. Don't be lazy.
😕😱
Who's smokin' what around here??We do not use delays with cutting lathes that I know of, the lathe can not cut and play back the disk simultaneously, so confidence monitoring is simply not possible without a second stylus, and its resonances would be induced into the cutting head, thus, no confidence monitoring.
For the mastering phase... During the 80s, not much material was input on computer and tweaked in the digital or analog domain back to tape. It wasnt till the late 80s-90s that we started using Cedar Sound and other such (what at the time seemed mighty costly) digital two and four track mastering software editing systems.
This was also around the time that Digtal Designs came out with Sound Designer I, which was the very early pre pre predecesessor to Avid Pro Tools
When Sony came out with their digital mastering recorders (pre DAT) we mixed to those as well as two track analog.
Some guys used 1/4" 15 or 30 IPS others ran 1/2" @ 15 or 30.
15 had better bottom end and simply a fatter sound 30 was much quieter and had roughly twice the headroom before modulation artifacts became evident.
It was typically left to the mastering engineer as to which print they used, analog or digital.
All this said, the analog recording process and the tape modulation effects are mighty pleasant on certain instruments and certain types of music, so even today, some folks record part of the arrangement on analog tape, bump it up to digital and finish the arrangement and mix in the digital domain.
If you want to see the ultimate marriage of digital and analog, google CLASP recording, or go to endlessanalog.com.
It's trippy, but very cool for old analog cum digital engineers like me, lol!
Oh, print through...
It's always happening, but tapes stored tails out (played and left that way) have a chunk of leader separating the overlapping magnetic layer, and the reverse lay leaves blank at the top, hence "no print through", um, well...
Projection. The laziness is entirely your own in pointing to a beach and claiming one specific pebble is on it, somewhere.
better 1 |ˈbetər|
adjective
1 comparative of good and well .
• of a more excellent or effective type or quality
John
Having an issue currently where the Pc based 16/44 does not sound as good as the disc played back via CD player, DAC pc combo suppose to be the cats pyjamas ...
Ideas ?
Ideas ?
This is completely off topic, please start another thread in the digital source section of the source & line forum. Thanks... 😀
I've yet to hear a piece of equipment with no audible distortions, even ones that measure spectacularly well. Also it is up to you to demonstrate your point, not the other way around.
This is also a bit OT, and if this is to be discussed further please start a new thread to do so over in the digital source forum. Let me know and I will move any posts you deem appropriate. Thanks.
YOU are the one claiming to hear distortions. YOU must provide the evidence.
@abraxalito:
The link I posted has loads of listening tests. If you are to lazy to scroll down and read a bit then its your loss.
I have no doubt that it does. However you claimed something very specific about 'properly designed' and that's what I wanted to know about - evidence for your specific claim.
Indeed.
And why exactly is that, pray tell? I'm not obligated to prove anything to you.😛
Your attitude may work at hydrogenaudio, but not here.. Cool it buddy.
Hilarious. 😀
You're not using the scientific method yourself yet you think others should?
In case you're unaware of where you've avoided using science, its in the area of controls. If you have evidence in science it does need to come from a controlled experiment. Did you control for 'properly designed' when you claimed you had evidence? If the answer to this is 'yes' then you'll have a falsifiable test for any piece of equipment so it can be classified as 'properly designed' or 'not properly designed'. But you've not produced such a test - presumably because you have no such test.
it therefore follows that your claimed evidence is not evidence as known to science.
No, you haven't provided the evidence to support your original claim.
That much is clear. If you highlight where the test is set out for controlling for 'proper design' then I'm really interested to read it.
That much is clear. If you highlight where the test is set out for controlling for 'proper design' then I'm really interested to read it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.