No, but I like the idea of an OPEN LOOP D-A and output amp. I can compare it to OPPO's high feedback D-A and output amp. A fair comparison I would presume.
heck, I'd like to see a controlled, blind listening comparison to a Sansa Clip+
of course with EQ for any audio frequency droop from the pono's filter
of course with EQ for any audio frequency droop from the pono's filter
Which part of the mastering would they be making mistakes on that was audible?
Which part of the mastering chain could be improved?
Last edited:
Compression and EQ are stable technologies. How could they be improved if their circuitry is a mature tech that no measurements can show any improvement within said circuitry?
How could compression and EQ botch a mastering when the bits just need to be burned to a CD or converted to a format?
It is not the technology that is the issue, but how it is used. Compressors and equalizers don't botch masterings - "engineers" botch masterings using compressors and equalizers.
With current technology ''mastering'' a recording consists of clicking ''save file'' and sending it to iTunes as an email attachment.
I do not see how ''mastering'' could botch a recording unless there was an improvement in technology that allowed for higher quality mastering processes.
I do not see how older masterings could be inferior to modern ones unless something in the chain had changed over time due to technology.
Last edited:
If one can't use it and cannot hear it then why did the recording engineers have it available before the levels were normalized?
CD mastering chains often have 88k and 176k equipment when CD's are manufactured and ''mastered''.
Why use DSD as a master tape archive tech at all?
Why not just archive everything at 16/128?
Last edited:
That explains a lot. Try compressing and raising the volume before sending it to iTunes. See how that works out.
I think that is now referred to as speed metal. Look at a spectrograph of modern metal - it is more or less a steady state drone at or slightly above 0dB. Those bands do well.
I still do not see why the archival and mastering chain would be 88k 176k or DSD if we cannot hear beyond a 16/44100 resolution.
I would call that wishful thinking.
I am not sure what your point is, considering that what I said was:
Once you have normalized the gain and done your processing, there isn't much point, but bits are cheap these days.
You apparently never have been to a studio and you obviously have no idea what mastering is.
I know what mastering is for a CD and lp.
What could possibly be done after a song is recorded, mixed and output to a file via ProTools on a laptop? All gain normalising and processing after remixing are done by a clicking a mouse or automatically. Media players on computers do this now as an option, will keep playback at the same level, so why master anything anymore?
Upload the piece to your website as a file in the resolution and format of your choice and it's done. Fans purchase and download, and it's a finished product.
On a computer this is known as Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V
All of the steps can be done in minutes on a PC after a piece is recorded on a laptop and most music these days is made in that fashion. Uploading a song to a band website for purchase does not require RIAA curve EQ or any of the other steps. Just get the levels correct, something that can be done in a few minutes using ProTools, and upload the file.
CD''s, LP's and film - another matter. But few CDs and LPs are purchased now. Music in 2014 is mostly just a file on a hard drive.
Last edited:
Visit a studio and let a sound engineer explain it to you. You are absolutely clueless what mastering is about.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.